Burks v. Webb, Administratrix’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently January 2013 · most notably Acuar v. Letourneau (2000), United States v. Price (1961)
16 federal appellate · 54 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 Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Harris · P. Lorillard Co. v. Clay · Cape Charles Flying Service, Inc. v. Nottingham · Yeary v. Holbrook · Richmond Railway & Electric Co. v. Garthright
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he reason for this rule is that the defendant, who by his negligence has injured another, owes to such other compensation for the injuries he has inflicted, and the payment for those injuries from a collateral source cannot relieve the defendant of his obligation. “There can be no abatement of damages on the principle of partial compensation received for the injury, where it comes from a collateral source, wholly independent of the defendant, and is as to him res inter alios acta.” The payment, of such moneys not being procured by the defendant, and they not having been either paid or received to satisfy in whole or in part his liability, he can derive no advantage therefrom in mitigation of damages for which he is liable.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Court instructs the jury, that the defendant was not an insurer of the safety of Calvin Ray McDonald and was not required to exercise that high degree of care owed for the safety of children unless he saw, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have seen, that Calvin Ray McDonald was in close proximity to Highway 40 as the defendant proceeded east along said highway. “The Court further instructs the jury, that if they believe from the evidence that the defendant did not see, and by the exercise of ordinary care could not have seen, Calvin Ray McDonald in close proximity to said highway and that Calvin Ray McDonald suddenly entered the highway from behind an obstruction into the path of defendant’s oncoming vehicle and so closely thereto that the defendant had no reasonable opportunity to avoid striking Calvin Ray McDonald after seeing him, and that the defendant was otherwise exercising ordinary care, then the jury shall return their verdict in favor of the defendant.” [Emphasis supplied]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burnette v. McDonald“The long established rule of this Court is that: “All instructions must be read in the light of the evidence, and if when so read they are not misleading, technical errors as to abstract propositions are not regarded as prejudicial.” [Citations omitted.]”
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.