McGehee v. McCarley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The plaintiff claims of the defendants ten thousand ($10,000) dollars as damages, for that heretofore, to wit, on December 1, 1893, the defendants were operating a line of railroad from the' city of Memphis, in the state of Tennessee, to the town of Stevenson, in the state of Alabama, which said line of railroad ran through, and was operated by the defendants in, the counties of Morgan and Limestone, in the state of Alabama, and on said December 1, 1893, the mother of plaintiff’s intestate purchased transportation for herself and four minor children (among them, plaintiff’s intestate, who was a minor child about seven years old) from Decatur, Ala., to some point in Texas unknown to plaintiff, over the line of railroad operated by defendants from Decatur to-Memphis, and on said date said mother of plaintiff’s intestate and said intestate, Zuma Allred, were misdirected by the agent of defendants at Decatur, Ala., as to the train they should take, and they boarded the passenger train, operated by defendants, going east. At Belle Mina, in Limestone county, Ala., they were put off said train by the conductor thereof, to await the arrival of the west-bound train on said road. Said passenger train was due going west at about 12 o’clock at night. The plaintiff’s intestate, Zuma Allred, and her mother, with three other minor children, the oldest of whom was nine years of age, and the youngest a nursing baby, remained in the wait Sng room at defendants’ depot at Bello Mina for the arr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McGhee v. McCarley

2. ““But the majority of this court finds material error in this causo resulting from the failure of the trial court to charge the jury, as the defendants below requested, that only compensatory, and not punitive, damages were recoverable in the ease. It is plain to us that under the doctrine of Railway Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101 , 13 Sup. Ct. 261 , 37 L. Ed. 97 , no punitive damages could be recovered in this case. It is not claimed that the corporation ever authorized or ratified the alleged negligence or assault. While the corporation may be compelled to make compensation for the tortious act of its servant committed in the scope of his employment, oven if the act be willful and wanton, yet, if the corporation be itself innocent, it cannot be punished bv the infliction of vindictive damages. See Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, in Railway Co. v. Russ, 6 C. C. A. 597 , 57 Fed. 822 . We find nothing in the statute of Alabama which would require a departure from the doctrine announced in Railway Co. v. Prentice, supra. On the contrary, we find that the Supreme Court of Alabama, in construing the very statute under which this action was brought (Code Ala. 1886, § 2588), said that the damages recoverable under that statute are compensatory and not. punitive. Williams v. Railroad Co., 91 Ala. 635 , 9 South. 77 . We are clear that the judgment must be reversed because of the error above stated.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sloss-Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Drane