Hayes v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1892
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Casey v. St. Louis Transit Co. (1905), Fish v. Liley (1949)
2 district · 24 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 Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railway Company v. Kellogg · Burns v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad · Morris v. Louis, Kansas City & Northern Railway Co. · Smith v. Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. · Nudd v. Thompson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If there were no surviving wife or husband, it would hardly be asserted that the heirs could not bring their action at any time during the two years. On the other hand, if there were no heirs, we think the surviving wife or husband might bring the action at any time during the same period. The provision does not expressly limit the wife’s right of action to one year. It simply declares that if she does not sue within that time the heirs may bring an action. There is no inconsistency in the assumption that the real purpose of this provision was simply to give the surviving wife or husband preference during the first year, but not to estop her or him from maintaining an action at any time before the expiration of the second year, provided there be no heirs, or provided the heirs, if any, have not instituted judicial proceedings.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““What is the proximate cause of an injury whether it be the original negligence of one party or the intermediate negligence of another party, is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury to be determined from the minor associated facts and circumstances.”'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Tadlock v. Lloyd
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.