Hinson v. Dawson’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
132 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Oestreicher v. American National Stores, Inc. (1976), Newton v. Standard Fire Insurance (1976)
132 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 Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home Stores · Belk v. Rosamond · Wagoner v. North Carolina Railroad · Swinton v. Savoy Realty Co. · Daniel v. Gardner
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n analysis of our decisions impels the conclusion that this Court, in references to gross negligence, has used the term in the sense of wanton conduct.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. prod.liab.rep.(cch)p 13,625 Linda P. Horne, of the Estate of Benny Gerald Horne, and Benny Gerald Horne v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, and Ac & S, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania Corporation Amchem Products, Incorporated the Celotex Corporation, Individually and as Successor Manufacturing Company, Philip Carey Corporation, Panacon Corporation, Glen Alden Corporation, Rapid American Corporation, Briggs Manufacturing Company, and Smith and Kanzler, a Delaware Corporation C.E. Thurston & Sons, a Virginia Corporation Combustion Engineering, Incorporated Crown Cork & Seal Company, Incorporated, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Mundet Cork Corporation, a New York Corporation Eagle-Picher Industries, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation Flintkote Company, a Massachusetts Corporation Fireboard Corporation, Pabco Industrial Products Division, a Delawarecorporation Gaf Corporation, a Delaware Corporation W.R. Grace & Company, a Connecticut Corporation A.P. Greene Refractories Company Keene Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Keene Building Products Corporation, Keene Insulation Products Corporation, Ehret-Magnesia Manufacturing Company, Baldwin-Ehret-Hill, Incorporated, Baldwin-Hill Company, and Mundet Cork Corporation, a New York Corporation National Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation Owens-Illinois, Incorporated, an Ohio Corporation Pittsburgh-Corning Corporation, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Union Asbestos and Rubber Company (Unarco), a Pennsylvania Corporation H.K. Porter Company, Incorporated, Individually and as Successor in Interest to Southern Asbestos, Carolina Asbestos, Thermoid and Tullman-Mccluskey, a Delaware Corporation Raymark Industries, Incorporated, Successor in Interest to Raybestos-Manhattan, Incorporated Rock Wool Manufacturing Company, Incorporated, an Alabama Corporation Turner & Newall, P.L.C., Individually and as Alter Ego of Keasby & Mattison United States Gypsum Company, Inc. Armstrong World Industries, Incorporated, Formerly Known as Armstrong Cork Company, a Pennsylvania Corporation, General Refractories/grefco, Incorporated, U.S. Refractories Division, and Third Party v. Manville Corporation Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund, Third Party · Yancey v. Lea“an issue as to punitive damages should be submitted to the jury. Upon submission thereof, it is for the jury to determine (1) whether punitive damages in any amount should be awarded, and if so (2) the amount of the award. These questions are determinable by the jury in its discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““There was evidence which, when considered in the light most favorable to plaintiff, tends to show: On February 19, 1964, near midnight, Calvin W. Barham (Calvin), was driving his Ford car in a northeasterly direction along Rural Paved Road No. 2224. Plaintiff, seated to Calvin’s right, and Dolly Barham (Dolly), seated to plaintiff’s right, were passengers. As he approached Fowler’s Crossroads, the intersection of No. 2224 with Rural Paved Road No. 2308, Calvin was driving in a drizzling rain, with slick tires, upgrade, at a speed of ninety miles an hour ‘or better’ moving back and forth across the road; and, although confronted by the stop sign at that intersection, failed to stop or slow down, crossed the intersection at such speed and lost control. As a result, his car left the road and overturned in a field some 288 feet from where it left the road, killing the driver and injuring the passengers. There was evidence sufficient to support a finding that Calvin’s conduct was both wilful and wanton.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Brewer v. Harris
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.