Swift & Co. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
138 F. 867 · 1905
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 1963
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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 Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. · Improvement Company v. Munson · Josephine Throckmorton v. Washington Holt · Randall v. Baltimore O R · Pennsylvania Company v. Roy
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The law, in confining the compensation to the pecuniary loss, does not run along the linns of the imaginary and the possible but rather along the lines of the actual and the probable, and therefore the reasonable expectation must be made to appear by the evidence. Conjecture, speculation, and fancy cannot supply the absence of evidence or avoid the effect of the evidence which is presented.””
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.