Adamson v. Dougherty’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 1992 · most notably State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Village of Isle (1963), Schmidt v. Driscoll Hotel, Inc. (1957)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 26 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 Coca Cola Co. v. Pepsi-Cola Co. · Beck v. Groe · Gammel v. Ernst & Ernst · Hahn v. City of Ortonville · 351 Ill. App. 466 - De Lude v. Rimek
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As above indicated the Mayes and Philips cases, cited in Beck v. Groe, supra, involved construction of M. S. A. 1941, § 340.12(4), rather than § 340.95. The language of the Beck case to the effect that a suit under the Civil Damage Act is a means to impose a penalty on a dealer of intoxicating liquor was used to indicate that the defenses of contributory negligence or lack of guilty knowledge are not available in an action for damages under § 340.95; but not, as plaintiff suggests, to determine that this section was other than compensatory in nature. “Other decisions relating to § 340.95, which refer to its penal characteristics, at the same time point out that its principal objective is the imposition of liability for damages caused by the intoxication of any person upon the dealer, who, by illegally selling intoxicating liquors, caused such intoxication. Hahn v. City of Ortonville, 238 Minn. 428 , 57 N. W. (2d) 254 ; Fox v. Swartz, 228 Minn. 233 , 36 N. W. (2d) 708 . The necessary implication to be drawn therefrom is that, as in other damage actions, a claimant’s prior recovery of the damages thus sustained would foreclose his right to again collect therefor under § 340.95; Driessen v. Moening, 208 Minn. 356 , 294 N. W. 206 ; Almquist v. Wilcox, 115 Minn. 37 , 131 N. W. 796 ; and that upon such a claimant would rest the burden of establishing that his damages were the proximate result of the illegal sale. * * * “This conclusion would not, of course, bar plaintiff from esta”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person who is injured in person or property, or means of support, by an intoxicated person, or by the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his own name, against any person who, by illegally selling, bartering or giving intoxicating liquors, caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages, sustained; and all damages recovered by a minor under this section shall be paid either to such minor or to his parent, guardian, or next friend, as the court directs; and all suits for damages under this section shall be by civil action in any court of this state having jurisdiction thereof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““It would follow that plaintiffs are not foreclosed on the issues now presented and therefore that the trial court did not err in striking defendant’s fourth defense. In the trial hereof, both parties may present such evidence as they may have at their disposal, including that submitted in the prior action, so that all such issues may properly be determined at that time.” 1”
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.