Anne Sweeney v. William G Errving’s Empirical Analysis
228 U.S. 233 · 1913
Citation profile
460 federal appellate · 52 district · 450 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,084 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp. (1941), Johnson v. United States (1948)
460 federal appellate · 52 district · 450 state decisions — followed in 42 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Patton v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co. · Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson · Pennsylvania Company v. Roy · Stokes v. Saltonstall
Cited together with Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Johnson v. United States · San Juan Light Transit Company v. Belen Requena · Commercial Molasses Corp. v. New York Tank Barge Corp. · Palmer v. Hoffman
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 1,084 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In our opinion, res ipsa loquitur means that the facts of the occurrence warrant the inference of negligence, not that they compel such an inference; that they furnish circumstantial evidence of negligence where direct evidence of it may be lacking, but it is evidence to be weighed, not necessarily to be accepted as sufficient; that they call for explanation or rebuttal, not necessarily that they require it; that they make a case to be decided by the jury, not that they forestall the verdict. Res ipsa loquitur, where it applies, does not convert the defendant’s general issue into an affirmative defense. When all the evidence is in, the question for the jury is whether the preponderance is with the plaintiff.””
63 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"`"Where the circumstances of the occurrence that has caused the injury are of a character to give ground for a reasonable inference that if due care had been employed by the party charged with care in the premises, the thing that happened amiss would not have happened," negligence may fairly be inferred in the absence of any explanation.' (Our emphasis.) 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, § 295, pp. 989, 991. Sweeney v. Erving (1913), 228 U.S. 233, 238 , 33 S.Ct. 416 , 57 L.Ed. 815, 818 ."”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * ‘The ruie 0f res loquitur does not relieve the plaintiff of the burden of showing negligence, nor does it raise any presumption in his favor. Whether the defendant introduces evidence or not, the plaintiff in this case will not be entitled to a verdict unless he satisfies the jury by the preponderance of the evidence that his injuries were caused by a defect in the elevator, attributable to the defendant’s negligence. The law attaches no special weight as proof to the fact of an accident, but simply holds it to be sufficient for the consideration of the jury, even in the absence of any additional evidence.’ ””
3 later decisions 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.