Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 162 VA 654 - Thomas v. Snow

Thomas v. Snow’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Philip Morris, Inc. v. Emerson (1988), Griffin v. Shively (1984)

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 42 state decisions

120193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Altman v. Aronson · Massaletti v. Fitzroy · Boggs v. Plybon · Gibbard v. Cursan · Young v. Dyer

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

  1. “In order that one may be held guilty of wilful or wanton conduct, it must be shown that he was conscious of his conduct, and conscious, from his knowledge of existing conditions, that injury would likely or probably result from his conduct, and that with reckless indifference to consequences he consciously and intentionally did some wrongful act or omitted some known duty which produced the injurious result.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““When an instruction attempts to define the duty which defendant owes to plaintiff the duty should be set forth with reasonable clearness, and if it is so framed as to be calculated to confuse or mislead the jury, as in this case, it is prejudicial error. [Citing numerous authorities] ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[g]ross negligence is a manifestly smaller amount of watchfulness and circumspection than the circumstances require of a person of ordinary prudence,”
    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.