Lang v. Henderson’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 1978 · most notably Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis (1950), Triangle Motors of Dallas v. Richmond (1953)
9 federal appellate · 61 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 Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Gasscamp · O'Connor v. Andrews · Temple Electric Light Co. v. Halliburton · Temple Electric Light Co. v. Halliburton · Pollack v. Perry
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"It is elementary that the question of contributory negligence is generally, by reason of the very nature of the defense, one of fact for the jury to decide. Gulf, Colorado & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gasscamp, 69 Tex. 545 , 7 S.W. 227 ; Temple Electric Light Company v. Halliburton, 104 Tex. 493 , 140 S.W. 426 , Id., Tex.Civ.App., 136 S.W. 584 ; McAfee v. Travis Gas Corporation, 137 Tex. 314 , 153 S.W.2d 442 . According to the authorities above cited and many others ( 69 Tex. 545 , 7 S.W. 228 ), `In order that an act shall be deemed negligent per se, it must have been done contrary to a statutory duty, or it must appear so opposed to the dictates of common prudence that we can say, without hesitation or doubt, that no careful person would have committed it.' (Emphasis added.) Gulf, Colorado & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Gasscamp, supra. Stating the rule in another way, the court can withdraw the question of contributory negligence of the plaintiff from the jury and determine it as a question of law only when from the facts in evidence but one rational inference can be drawn. 38 American Jurisprudence, p. 1054, Sec. 348. It has been said that contributory negligence is a question of fact for the jury when the evidence shows that the plaintiff, with knowledge or chargeable with knowledge of the danger, exercised some care. Henwood v. Gilliam, Tex.Civ.App., 207 S.W.2d 904 , application for writ of error refused."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is elementary that the question of contributory negligence is generally, by reason of the very nature of the defense, one of fact for the jury to decide. [Citing cases.] According to the authorities above cited and many others * * * ‘In order that an act shall be deemed negligent per se, * * * it must appear so opposed to the dictates of common prudence that we can say, without hesitation or doubt, that no careful person would have committed it.’ ””
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.