Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 124 MINN 65 - Mitton v. Cargill Elevator Co.

Mitton v. Cargill Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1913

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
4
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Hallada v. Great Northern Railway (1955), Leblanc v. Grillo (1942)

1 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

12019131920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Rase v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co. · Olson v. Great Northern Railway Co. · Lillstrom v. Northern Pacific Railroad · Orth v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. · Bruckman v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “* * * Plaintiff was not required to prove causal connection by direct evidence. If the circumstantial evidence was `something more than consistent' with plaintiff's theory, if it furnished a reasonable basis for the inference by the jury of the ultimate fact that the alleged negligence was the cause of the injury complained of, it is sufficient proof of the causal connection to sustain a verdict. Plaintiff was not bound to negative all possible circumstances which would excuse the defendant. Where a cause is shown that might produce a given accident, and the fact appears that an accident of that particular character did occur, it may be a warrantable inference, in absence of a showing of other causes, that the one known was the operative agency in bringing about the result. [Citing many cases.]”
    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.