Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 116 ARK 82 - Biddle v. Jacobs

Biddle v. Jacobs’s Empirical Analysis

1914

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
1
states following
December 1999
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently December 1999

18 state decisions

50191419201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Settle v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad · St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Hempfling · Railway Co. v. Henderson · Denton v. Mammoth Spring Electric Light & Power 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In actions for damages on account of negligence, plaintiff is bound to prove, not only the negligence, but that it was the cause of the damage. This causal connection must be proved by evidence as a fact, and not be left to mere speculation and conjecture. The rule does not require, however, that there must be direct proof of the fact itself. This would often be impossible. It will be sufficient if the facts proved are of such a nature, and are so connected and related to each other that the conclusion therefrom may be fairly inferred.” [Emphasis mine.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"Such proof is not required, however, to exclude all doubt on the subject, nor is it required that the proof show the death could not, or that the death did not, in fact, result from a tumor, or some other cause not attributable to the collision; but it is sufficient if the evidence reasonably warrants the jury in finding from a preponderance of the evidence that deceased’s death did, in fact, result from an injury received in this collision. ’ ’”
    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.