Superior Forwarding Co. v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently August 2005 · most notably Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. G. C. Nicklaus (1965), Scott v. McClain (1988)
4 federal appellate · 18 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 Oviatt, Administrator v. Garretson · Glidewell, Admin. v. Arkhola Sand Gravel Co. · Kapp v. Sullivan Chevrolet Co. · Turner v. Hot Springs Street Railway Co. · Henry H. Cross Co. v. Simmons
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"To submit to a jury a choice of possibilities is but to permit the jury to conjecture or guess, and where the evidence presents no more than such choice it is not substantial, and where proven facts give equal support to each of two inconsistent inferences, neither of them can be said to be established by substantial evidence and judgment must go against the party upon whom rests the burden of sustaining one of the inferences as against the other."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The burden was upon the appellee to produce some substantial evidence from which the jury might find some act or omission constituting negligence by the appellants as alleged in appellee’s complaint. Such evidence can be established either by direct or circumstantial evidence but the appellee cannot rely upon inferences based on conjecture or speculation in order to establish proof of negligence.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A directed verdict for the defendant is proper only when there is no substantial evidence from which the jurors as reasonable men could possibly find the issues for the plaintiff. In such circumstances the trial judge must give to the plaintiff’s evidence its highest probative value, taking into account all reasonable inferences that may sensibly be deduced from it, and may grant the motion only if the evidence viewed in that light would be so insubstantial as to require.him to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff should such a verdict be returned by the jury. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. v. Britton, 107 Ark. 158 , 154 S.W. 215 ; Mo. Pac. R. Co. v. McKamey, 205 Ark. 907 , 171 S.W.2d 932 ; Ozan Lbr. Co. v. Tidwell, 210 Ark. 942 , 198 S.W.2d 182 .””
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.