105 Ind. App. 694 - Dickerson v. Ewin’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1998
2 federal appellate · 2 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 Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Means
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The facts of that case (Means) are materially different from the facts of the instant case. The injured party in that case was clearly non sui juris; in this case the injured party, insofar as the evidence shows, was clearly sui juris. The circumstances under which the injury occurred in that case are materially different from the situation in this case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Whether such a duty existed in this, or in any case, is a question of law for the court, while the question whether such duty was properly performed is a question of fact for the jury.””
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.