Matthews v. Porter’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently May 2021 · most notably Mickle v. Blackmon (1969), Young Ex Rel. Estate of Young v. Tide Craft, Inc. (1978)
11 federal appellate · 34 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 Benton Ex Rel. Benton v. Pellum · Henderson Ex Rel. Utley v. Powell · Riggs v. Akers Motor Lines, Inc. · Woody v. South Carolina Power Co. · 55 F. Supp. 17 - Jones v. Atlantic Refining Co.
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Evidence of an independent negligent act of a third party is directed to the question of proximate cause. To exculpate a negligent defendant, the intervening cause must be one which breaks the sequence or causal connection between the defendant’s negligence and the injury alleged. The superseding act must so intervene as to exclude the negligence of the defendant as one of the proximate causes of the injury. (Citation).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In arriving at the verdict the jury could consider the loss of future earning power which requires a consideration of all matters which relate to the issue of the disability, the effect which that disability will have on plaintiff’s capacity to work, the extent to which the disability will impair the plaintiff’s earning capacity, the present value of all losses due to his impaired earning power, Jones v. Atlantic Refining Co., D.C., 55 F.Supp. 17 , such physical pain and suffering as reasonably certain will of necessity result in the future from the injury * * #”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ray v. United States““It is well settled in this State that if a party fails to produce the testimony of an available witness on a material issue in the cause, it may be inferred that such testimony, if presented, would be adverse to the party who fails to call the witness. (Citing cases). Generally, the rule above stated is applied when the uncalled witness is a relative of the party failing to call such witness, or within some degree of control of said party. Davis v. Sparks, 235 S. C. 326, 111 S. E. (2d) 545 .””
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.