Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg’s Empirical Analysis
94 U.S. 469 · 1876
Citation profile
334 federal appellate · 62 district · 619 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,154 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2018 · most notably Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian (1936), Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. (1931)
334 federal appellate · 62 district · 619 state decisions — followed in 46 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 Kellogg v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co. · Webb v. . R., W. and O.R.R. Co. · Ryan v. . New York Central Railroad · Higgins v. Dewey
Cited together with Insurance Company v. Boon · Scheefer v. Railroad Company · Atchison Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Samuel Calhoun · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Bigham · Bailey v. Zlotnick
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 1,154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But it is generally held that, in order to warrant a finding that negligence, or an act not amounting to wanton wrong, is the proximate cause of an injury, it must appear that the injury was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence or wrongful act, and that it ought to have been foreseen in the light of the attending circumstances.””
106 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The subject of proposed inquiry was a matter of common observation, upon which the lay or uneducated mind is capable of forming a judgment. In regard to such matters, experts are not permitted to state their conclusions. On questions of science their opinions are received, for in such questions scientific men have superior knowledge, and generally think alike. Not so in matters of common knowledge.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““whether the burning of the mill and lumber was the result naturally and reasonably to be expected from the burning of the elevator; whether it was a result which, under the circumstances, would naturally follow from the burning of the elevator; and whether it was. the result of the continued effect of the sparks from the steamboat, without the aid of other causes not reasonably to be expected.””
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.