Jones v. Cary’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 93 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Gamble v. Lewis (1949), Neal, Admr. v. Home Builders, Inc. (1953)
3 federal appellate · 93 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 Union Traction Co. v. Berry · Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. Barnhart · Citizens Telephone Co. v. Prickett · Central Indiana Railway Co. v. Wishard · Chambers v. Hawkins
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While the violation of such a statutory regulation does not conclusively establish negligence, it is prima facie evidence of negligence and places on the opposing party the duty of producing evidence to show a valid excuse for such violation.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . While the violation of such a statutory regulation does not conclusively establish negligence, it is prima facie evidence of negligence and places on the opposing party the duty of producing evidence to show a valid excuse for such violation. [Citing cases.] So, here, the burden was on the appellants to produce evidence of facts which would excuse Hebenstreit for driving on the left side of the center of the highway as he approached the Southwood automobile. The evidence fails to disclose any basis for an inference that there was any reason or excuse for Hebenstreit driving to the left of the center of the highway as he approached the Southwood automobile. While ordinarily the question of proximate cause in a negligence case is a question of fact for the determination of the jury, if the facts are undisputed and are such that reasonable men could draw but one inference as to the proximate cause of the injury, then the question of proximate cause is a question of law for the court. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Sudhoff (1910), 173 Ind. 314 , 90 N. E. 467 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It is a violation of law in this State to operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways of this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Section 47-517, Burns’ 1933. To operate an automobile in violation of a statute is negligence, and such negligence is actionable if it proximately results in injuries to life or property. It is appellant’s contention that intoxication alone does not constitute actionable negligence. With this statement, we are in accord; but when intoxication of the driver coupled with the operation of a motor vehicle is established, wrongful conduct is shown.” (Our emphasis.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.