Luther v. Maple’s Empirical Analysis
250 F.2d 916 · 1958
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1989 · most notably American Export Lines, Inc. v. Alvez (1980), 20 Ill. 2d 406 - Dini v. Naiditch (1960)
31 federal appellate · 4 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 United States v. Bayer · Railway Company v. McCarthy · Hitaffer v. Argonne Co. · Muriel Jeanne Homolla v. Shirley C. Gluck · Pennsylvania Railroad v. Minds
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The contention of the defendants that the trial court erred in instructing the jury that Donna Maple could be awarded damages for loss of consortium, because under Nebraska law a wife may not recover for such loss attributable to injuries negligently inflicted upon her husband, raises a doubtful question of the law of that State which can definitely be decided only by the Supreme Court of Nebraska. Concededly, that court has not yet ruled upon the question. There is respectable authority both ways. See Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., Inc., 87 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 183 F.2d 811 , 23 A.L.R.2d 1366, and the Annotation following that case, on pages 1378-1397 of 23 A.L.R.2d. The late Judge Donohoe, of the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, was of the opinion that under Nebraska law a wife could recover damages for loss of consortium in a case such as the instant one. Cooney v. Moomaw, D.C.D.Neb., 109 F.Supp. 448, 450. Obviously no one can predict with any assurance how the question will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court of Nebraska.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“outpredict, outforecast or outguess a trial judge with respect to a doubtful question of the law of his State.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.