Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 MICH 466 - Nelson v. Crawford

Nelson v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis

1899

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
8
states following
May 1975
most recently cited

1 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 1975

1 district · 17 state decisions

70189919001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Spade v. Lynn & Boston Railroad · Hill v. Kimball · Larson v. Chase · Braun v. Craven · Meagher v. Driscoll

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

  1. ““If the right of recovery in this class of cases should be once established, it would naturally result in a flood of litigation in cases where the injury complained of may be easily feigned without detection, and where the damages must rest on mere conjecture or speculation. The difficulty which often exists^ in cases of alleged physical injuries, in determining whether they exist, * * * would not only be greatly increased, but a wide_ field would be opened for fictitious or speculative claims. To establish such a doctrine would be contrary to principles of public policy. * * * We think the most reliable and better-considered cases, as well as public policy, fully justify us in holding that the plaintiff cannot recover for injuries occasioned by fright, as there was no immediate personal injury.””
    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.