Duke v. Gaines’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions — most recently July 1990 · most notably Griffin Lumber Co. v. Harper (1946), Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Harmon (1934)
4 federal appellate · 121 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 Godfrey v. Vinson · Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Turnipseed · Citizen's L. H. & P. Co. v. Lee · Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville · Shafer v. Myers
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' 'knowledge of existing conditions and consciousness that ... injury will likely or probably result.' '”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Clearly it is the right of the plaintiff to have ascertained whether there is an insurance carrier for the purpose of qualifying the jury, and, if so, his right is to ascertain whether jurors are interested by reason of connection with such company. “In Citizens’ L., H. & P. Co. v. Lee, 182 Ala. 561 , 62 So. 199 , it was remarked that if the trial court and counsel for plaintiff knew none of the jurors were interested, any examination would be improper, or in bad faith, merely designed to prejudice the case by injecting the insurance company as the party to pay. We approve this announcement. But since that decision, section 8662 of the Code has been enacted, conferring on the parties the right to examine jurors touching their interests, etc. Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville, 222 Ala. 120 , 130 So. 807 ; Mays v. State, 218 Ala. 656 , 120 So. 163 . “In the face of this statute we cannot hold the defendant may take some other method of proving the qualifications of the jurors, cutting off this statutory right to qualify them in the usual manner.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mitchell v. Vann
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.