Railroad Company v. Stout’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

154 federal appellate · 19 district · 408 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 681 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is this class of cases and those akin to it that the law commits,to the decision of a jury. Twelve men of the average of the community, comprising men of education and men of little education, men of learning and men Alióse learning consists only in what they have themselves seen and heard, the merchant, the mechanic, the farmer, the laborer; these sit together, consult, apply their separate experience of the affairs of life to the facts proven, and draw a unanimous conclusion. This average judgment thus given it is the great effort of the-law to obtain. ' It is assumed that twelve men know more of the common affairs of life than does one man, that they can draw wiser and safer conclusions from admitted facts thus occurring than can a single judge.””

   18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Illinois Cent. R. v. Foley · Swift & Co. v. Langbein

2. ““There are no doubt eases in which the contrary rule is laid down. But we conceive the rule to be this: That while a railway company is not bound to the same degree of care in regard to mere trespassers who are unlawfully upon its premises that it oives to passengers conveyed by it, it is not exempt from responsibility to such strangers for injuries arising from its negligence or from its tortious acts.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Phipps v. Oregon R. & Navigation Co. · Haynes v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co.

3. ““It was to be expected tbat tbe amusement of the boys would have been found in turning this table while they were on it or about it.' This could certainly have been prevented by locking the turntable when not in use by the company. It was not shown that this would cause any considerable expense or inconvenience to the defendant. It could probably have been prevented by the repair of the broken latch. This was a heavy catch which, by dropping into a socket, prevented the revolution of the table. There had been one on this table weighing some 8 or 10 pounds, but it had been broken off and had not been replaced. It was proved to have been usual with railroad companies to have upon their turntables a latch or bolt, or some similar instrument. The jury may well have believed that if the defendant had incurred the trifling expense of replacing this latch, and had taken the slight trouble of putting it in its place, these very small boys would not have taken the pains to lift it out, and thus the whole difficulty have been avoided. Thus reasoning, the jury would have reached the conclusion that the defendant had omitted the care and attention it ought to have given, that it was negligent, and that its negligence caused the injury to the plaintiff. The evidence is not strong, and the negligence is slight, but we are not able to say that there is not evidence sufficient to justify the verdict. We are not called upon to Weigh, to measure, to balance the evidence, or to ascertain how we”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Great Northern Ry. Co. v. Willard · Lovejoy v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad