102 Ga. App. 117 - Fields v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 1998 · most notably 171 Ga. App. 331 - Ford Motor Co. v. Stubblefield (1984), 150 Ga. App. 154 - Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. v. Lewis (1979)
3 federal appellate · 38 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 Hunter v. New York, Ontario & Western Railroad · Harris v. Central Railroad · 19 Ga. App. 186 - Realty Bond & Mortgage Co. v. Harley · 79 Ga. App. 530 - Western & Atlantic Railroad v. Burnett · Hunter v. N. Y., Ontario & Western R. Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the statute is construed to mean that the burden is on the person offering the testimony that a traffic-control device existed to show in the first instance that such sign or device is `official,' and was `placed in accordance with the provisions of this law' then no meaning can be given to the last part of the sentence which provides that proof shall not be required in the first instance' of who and by what authority such sign or device has been erected.' The statute must therefore mean that the movant may offer evidence that a traffic-control sign or device existed at the given spot; the burden is then upon the person objecting to the evidence to offer evidence showing that such signal was not placed there by any proper governmental authority. The evidence might be general, as showing that the signal in question is not one used by the authority having jurisdiction at that place; it might be a showing that it was placed there by an unauthorized authority, or it might be any other type of evidence sufficient to overcome the prima facie showing that such device existed and should therefore have been obeyed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The question of damages being one for the jury, the court should not interfere, unless the damages are either so small or so excessive as to justify the inference of gross mistake or undue bias.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.