Smith v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2011 · most notably Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries (1994), Hill v. Smith (1923)
3 federal appellate · 38 state decisions — followed in 12 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.
Relationships
Relies on Birkett v. Columbia Bank · George Kreitlein v. Charles Ferger · Carroll v. Boston Elevated Railway Co. · Wylie v. Marinofsky · Hughes v. Williams
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ Where the party having the burden of proof establishes a prima-facie case, and no proof to the contrary is offered, he will prevail. Therefore the other party, if he would avoid the effect of such prima-facie case, must produce evidence, of equal or greater weight, to balance and control it, or he will fail. Still the proof upon both sides applies to the affirmative or negative of one and the same issue, or proposition of fact; and the party whose case requires the proof of that fact has all along the burden of proof. It does not shift, though the weight in either scale may at times preponderate. But where the party having the burden of proof gives competent and prima-facie evidence of a fact, and the adverse party instead of producing proof ivhich would go to negative the same proposition of fact', proposes to show another and a distinct proposition which avoids the effect- of it, there the burden of proof shifts, and rests u<pon the party proposing to shoio the latter fact.” (Italics ours.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harris v. Sims
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.