Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 134 SW2D 333 - Webester v. Henwood

Webester v. Henwood’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
June 1968
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 1968

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

801939194019501960decided

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. Shoemaker · Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Porter · 40 Tex. Civ. App. 252 - Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Greenwood · Texas & N. O. R'y Co. v. Crowder · Maul v. Williams

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

  1. ““Since the body of the deceased was found on the railroad track, near a public crossing, it is reasonable to assume that deceased was struck by one of the defendant’s trains at or near said crossing. We may also assume that the passenger train was operated through the town at an excessive rate of speed on the morning in question, and that the employees were negligent in so operating it. But there is no evidence to show that the train which was so negligently operated struck the deceased. It is equally as certain that he was killed by the freight train, and no one testified that it was negligently operated. Moreover, there is no evidence to show the circumstances under which the deceased was struck by the train. If it should be conceded that the passenger train was operated at an excessive rate of speed, or that those in charge thereof failed to keep a proper lookout, or that the train was otherwise negligently operated, the plaintiff wholly failed to meet the burden of proving, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, that such negligence, if any, was the proximate cause of the death of the deceased. The evidence was therefore insufficient to raise a question of fact for the jury, and the court properly instructed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant.””
    2 later decisions 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.