Simmonds v. Capital Transit Co.’s Empirical Analysis
147 F.2d 570 · 1945
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently July 1978 · most notably The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969), Howard v. Swagart (1947)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 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 Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan · Shewmaker v. Capital Transit Co. · Hoehn v. McIntosh · American Ice Co. v. Moorehead · Dickerson v. Franklin Nat. Ins.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In other words, construing the evidence most favorably to appellant and giving to him the full effect of every legitimate inference therefrom — as the law requires — reasonable men might well differ in their conclusions, upon the evidence so considered. No more is required to sustain the verdict against a motion for judgment n. o. v.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he appellate court is required to balance the weight of the evidence against the judge’s determination and in favor of the jury’s determination. The question is, not whether there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the findings and decision of the judge, but whether there is evidence upon which reasonable men might differ as to negligence and other elements of liability; whether a jury of reasonable men could properly reach a verdict in favor of the party upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The motion for judgment cannot be granted unless, as matter of law, the opponent of the movant failed to make a case and, therefore, a verdict in movant's favor should have been directed.”
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.