Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Curl’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.2d 497 · 1949
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 1983 · most notably Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc. (1957), Solomon Dehydrating Company, Incorporated v. Clarence R. Guyton, Central Greyhound Lines, Incorporated, and the Greyhound Corporation (1961)
27 federal appellate · 4 district · 14 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Callen v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Virginian Ry. Co. v. Armentrout · Thompson v. Camp · Stokes v. United States
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The evidence was sufficient to justify the jury in finding that the release was given as the result of a mutual mistake as to the nature of the injury sustained. [The] evidence leaves little room for doubt that the physician who examined the [plaintiff] on behalf of the railway company, the claim agent who settled the claim, and the [plaintiff] honestly believed that [the plaintiffs] injuries were of minor character and that his complete recovery was assured for the immediate future. There was a mistake of both parties concerning a present fact material to the contract. * * * * * *”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * It was only necessary that he produce evidence which, read in the light most favorable to him, supported a finding of the jury that at the time of the release appellee was suffering from a substantial and severe injury from which, at best, recovery was doubtful, and that the release was given in the mistaken belief on the part of appellee and appellant, honestly but erroneously held, that appellee’s injury was not permanent nor serious, but • on the other hand of a minor character from which his complete and early recovery was certain.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“in the exceptional case, `where the verdict is so manifestly without support in the evidence that failure to set it aside amounts to an abuse of discretion' on the part of the trial court”
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.