Fike v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Meehan v. Central Railroad Company of New Jersey (1960), Belford v. Allen (1938)
27 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 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Craft · The Corsair · City of Shawnee v. Cheek · Tully v. Fitchburg Railroad · Aderhold v. Bishop
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"There is no hard and fast rule that requires the court to penalize the plaintiff by directing a mistrial because evidence that the defendant is protected by indemnity insurance is heard by the jury. However, if plaintiff gets this matter into the case by questionable practice, the court, upon proper application, should penalize him by directing a mistrial. And if he deliberately sets out, though in an indirect way, to inform the jury by improper evidence or arguments that the loss, if any, will fall upon an insurance company, his conduct is deemed so prejudicial as to warrant a reversal of the judgment, if for the plaintiff, and the granting of a new trial; at least, where the evidence is conflicting, and the case is a close one on its facts. * * *."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Redman v. McDaniel““In an action by a parent for the loss of the services of a minor child, the damage to the parent is limited to such as will compensate him. for the loss of the child’s services to the time of his majority, the reasonable amounts necessarily expended in the treatment and care of the child, and the value of the parent’s services while nursing the child, and the jury may consider that with age, growth, and experience the value of the child’s services would increase, although they cannot consider that the child might, if not injured, engage in any particular calling.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sample v. Campbell“it could not have affected the substantial rights of the defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duke v. Duke
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.