Sampson v. Channell’s Empirical Analysis
110 F.2d 754 · 1940
Citation profile
75 federal appellate · 20 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 127 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1994 · most notably Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. (1941), Speiser v. Randall (1958)
75 federal appellate · 20 district · 8 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Pennoyer v. Neff · Swift v. Tyson · Mobile Jackson Kansas City Railroad Company v. J a Turnipseed · Home Ins Co v. Dick
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 127 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Rule 8(c) speaks of contributory negligence as an ‘affirmative defense’, a phrase implying that the burden of proof is on the defendant. Yet the only rule laid down is one of pleading; the defendant must affirmatively plead contributory negligence. It is not inconsistent to require the defendant to plead contributory negligence if he wants to raise the issue, and yet to put the burden of proof on the plaintiff if the issue is raised. Since Rule 8(c) contains no prescription as to burden of proof, we must look elsewhere for the answer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is apparent ... that burden of proof does not fall within either category of "substance” or "procedure” by virtue of any intrinsic compulsion, but the matter has been made to turn upon the purpose at hand to be served by the classification.”
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.