Milwaukee and St Paul Railway Company v. Apms et al.’s Empirical Analysis
91 U.S. 489 · 1875
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 6 district · 80 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 207 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably Smith v. Wade (1983), Lake Shore Ry Co v. Prentice (1893)
65 federal appellate · 6 district · 80 state decisions — followed in 30 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Day v. Woodworth · Philadelphia & Reading Railroad v. Derby · Two Guys From Harrison, Inc. v. Furman · Romie v. Casanova
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 207 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Gross negligence' is a relative term. It is doubtless to be understood as meaning a greater want of care than is implied by the term 'ordinary negligence;' but, after all, it means the absence of the care that was necessary under the circumstances.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In 1liis court, tlie doctrine is well settled that, in actions of $ort, the jury, in addition to tlie sum awarded by way of compensation for the plaintiff's injury, may award exemplary, punitive, or vindictive damages, sometimes called ‘smart money,’ if tlie defendant has acted wantonly, or oppressively, or witli such malice as implies a spirit of mischief or criminal indifference to civil obligations. But such guilty intention on tlie part of tlie defendant is required in order to charge him with exemplary or punitive damages.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As the question of intention is always material in an action of tort, and as the circumstances which characterize the transaction are, therefore, proper to be weighed by the jury in fixing the compensation of the injured party, it may well be considered whether the doctrine of exemplary damages cannot be reconciled with the idea, that compensation alone is the true measure of redress.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.