Herrick v. Sayler’s Empirical Analysis
245 F.2d 171 · 1957
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Lavieri v. Ulysses (1962), Ricciuti v. Voltarc Tubes, Inc. (1960)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Talbot · 127 Ind. App. 149 - HAHN v. Moore · Mayhew v. Burns · Chadwick, Treasurer v. City of Crawfordsville · Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. Peyton
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Statutes are to be construed as having a prospective operation unless the language clearly indicates that they were intended to be retrospective. (Citations omitted.) Where retroactive operation of remedial statutes is necessary to carry out the purpose of the new law, and no neto rights are given or existing rights taken away, and only a new remedy is afforded for the enforcement of an existing right, the statutes may be given a retroactive operation. A retroactive statute must not take away an existing right or give a new right, but can only provide a new remedy to enforce an existing right.” (Original emphasis.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In other jurisdictions where the same general rules of statutory construction are followed as those followed by the Indiana courts and in cases quite similar to the instant case, statutes increasing liability have been denied retroactive operation. See e.g., Field v. Witt Tire Co. of Atlanta, Ga., 2 Cir., 200 F. 2d 74 (Conn. Law); Monroe v. Chase, D.C.E.D. Ill., 76 F. Supp. 278 (I;;. Law); Regan v. Davis, 290 Pa. 167 , 138 A. 751 , 54 A. L. R. 1073; Keeley v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 139 Wis. 448 , 121 N. W. 167 ; Theodosis v. Keeshin Motor Express Co., 341 Ill. App. 8 , 92 N. E. 2d 794 ; Cf. United States v. Mashburn, D.C. W.D. Ark., 85 F. Supp. 968 . Although these decisions are obviously not controlling here, they are highly persuasive as to the rule Indiana should and would adopt.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such expenses necessarily incurred by reason of any injury and resulting death, eg. medical attention and funeral expenses.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Johnston
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.