Dowell, Inc. v. Jowers’s Empirical Analysis
166 F.2d 214 · 1948
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez (2008), Doris R. Edwards, Etc., Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Cross-Appellees (1975)
93 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 Hormel v. Helvering · Ex Parte Allen · Shokuwan Shimabukuro v. Higeyoshi Nagayama · Reed v. Warren · Eichorn v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power Co.
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"... the object of this law [Louisiana’s wrongful death statute] (so far as the children are concerned) was to save them harmless during their minority from the loss of the benefits (material and moral) which they would have received had their father lived up to the time of their respective majorities to provide for their temporary needs — to tide them over to majority under as favorable conditions as they would have been tided' over had their father not been killed. We do not think that the amount of property which the father might have possibly earned up to the date of his probable natural death, and which these children might have inherited at that time, enters as a factor in determining to what extent they are entitled to a judgment in their favor. The true question is, what had the children the right to receive from their father during their minority? For the loss of this they are to be compensated. What they were to get after his death would not enter into the case.” 38 So. at 530 . [emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under Louisiana law, in the case of a widow an element of damages is loss of support during her deceased husband’s life expectancy; in the case of minor children, it is an element only during their minority ... Such elements as these should have been dealt with in the charge to the jury. In addition, it should have been explained that the amount of wages earned by [decedent] at the time of his death may be considered by the jury along with other evidence in arriving at the degree of support he would have given to his family. The charge as given on this point is an invitation to the jury to figure on the basis of [decedent’s] life expectancy how much he would have earned during his lifetime, and subtract the amount it would have cost for his own sustenance; the sum thus arrived at would represent what plaintiffs would have received from him. The law does not permit damages to be so calculated in cases like the one before us.” 166 F.2d at 220 . [emphasis supplied.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“where it is apparent to the appellate court on the face of the record that a miscarriage of justice may occur because counsel has not properly protected his client by timely objection.”
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.