Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 F.1d 489 - Burrell v. Fleming

Burrell v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis

109 F. 489 · 1901

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
August 2015
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2015

9 federal appellate · 4 district ·

50190119101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Cox · Gerrity v. Bark Kate Cann · The Saratoga · The Helios · The Anaces

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “•‘A negligent act causing death is in itself a tort, and, were it not for tlie rule founded on the maxim, ‘actio personalis moritur cum persona,’ damages therefor could have been recovered in an action at common law. * * * An action to recover damages for a tort is not local, but transitory, and can as a general rule be maintained wherever the wrongdoer can be found. " * ® It may well be that, where a purely statutory right is created, the special remedy provided by the statute for the enforcement of that right must be pursued ; but, where the statute simply takes away a common-law obstacle to a recovery for an admitíed tort, it would seem not unreasonable to hold that an action for that tort can be maintained in any state in which that common-law obstacle has been removed. At least it has been held by this court in repealed cases that an action for such a tort can be maintained ‘where the statute of the state, in which the cause of action arose is not in substance inconsistent with the statutes or public policy of the state in which the right of action is sought to be enforced.’ ””
    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.