Bowman v. Little’s Empirical Analysis
1905
Citation profile
4 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently June 1981 · most notably McKeon v. State, Use of Conrad (1956), Mitchell v. Frederick (1934)
4 district · 42 state decisions
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 Coffin v. United States · Patterson v. Gaines · Jones v. Jones · Barnum v. Barnum · Teter v. Teter
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A conclusion logically drawn from premises which are themselves mere probabilities, must of necessity be only a mere probability also, because a conclusion, to be formal, must always be contained in the premises, and probabilities can never contain a certainty.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The standard or measure by which the legal sufficiency of evidence is ascertained is not unvarying and inflexible, and hence is not the same in every case.””
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.