Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 MOAPP 273 - Cunningham v. Wabash Railroad

Cunningham v. Wabash Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
July 1971
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 1971

17 state decisions

501912192019301940195019601970decided

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 Whelan v. Reilly · Witting v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. · Hof v. St. Louis Transit Co. · Mitchell v. Chicago & Alton Railway Co. · Libby v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““If it appears, as it does here, that the animals were in good condition when delivered to the carrier for transportation and that they were severely gashed and wounded upon reaching their destination, the jury may infer from such facts alone that the transportation was not attended with due care. In other words, the cause of the injury may be established from collateral facts and circumstances affording a reasonable inference of negligence, identically as other facts may be established in a suit at law. We have heretofore declared that, where the liability sought to be enforced is that at common law, a prima facie case of negligence, or breach of duty in respect of the transportation of animals, will arise upon showing that the animals were wounded, as by external violence, during transit and thus evince a physical condition which does not usually appear if the carriage was had with ordinary care. From such a showing, the jury is authorized to infer, and may find, the defendant negligent. ’ ’”
    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.