Baltimore & O. R. v. O'Neill’s Empirical Analysis
211 F.2d 190 · 1954
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently January 1978 · most notably Joseph E. Thomas v. Ruth A. Martin Hogan (1962), Bryan v. John Bean Division of FMC Corp. (1978)
32 federal appellate · 1 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 Palmer v. Hoffman · Anne Sweeney v. William G Errving · Moore v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co. · Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine Railroad · General Reinsurance Corp. v. Commissioner
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under the rule the burden of proof does not shift from the plaintiff to the defendant, and if the plaintiff offers no evidence pertaining to the issue of negligence other than the facts of the occurrence of the injury, and the explanatory facts are sufficient to rebut the inference, the plaintiff fails to meet the burden and fails to make a case. Sweeney v. Erving, supra, 228 U.S. [223] at page 241, 33 S.Ct. [416], at page 418 [57 L.Ed. 815]. Where the explanatory evidence is contradictory or of such a character as to justify different inferences as to defendant's exercise of due care, it is for the jury to determine whether the inference of negligence has been rebutted by the explanatory evidence. But where the possible inference of negligence is clearly overcome by undisputed evidence free from any reasonable adverse inference, or where the uncontradicted explanatory facts establish non-liability as a matter of law, it is the duty of the court to direct a verdict for the defendant. The application of the rule does not change the general rule that where the evidence as a whole is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff, defendant's motion for a directed verdict should be sustained.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“no evidence of any kind in what way it [the bolt] was defective, or that it was not a hidden defect, or that the appellant [railroad] knew or should have known that it was defective.”
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.