Grayson v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
256 F.2d 61 · 1958
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably 76 Ill. 2d 353 - Peterson v. Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Co. (1979), Gypsum Carrier, Inc. v. Handelsman (1962)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Kelly v. Huber Baking Co. · Hudson v. Lazarus · Whitaker v. Keogh · Standard Oil Co. v. United States
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No reason in law, equity or good conscience can be advanced why a wrongdoer should benefit from part payment from a collateral source of damages caused by his wrongful act. if there must be a windfall certainly its is more just that the injured person shall profit therefrom, rather than the wrongdoer shall be relieved of his full responsibility for his wrongdoing.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It would seem that while the Wyoming Court has not drawn a clear distinction between the terms negligence per se and evidence of negligence, it is nonetheless committed to the doctrine that a violation of a traffic law or regulation will impose liability only when it is the proximate cause of the resulting injuries. * * * In our view, it is immaterial whether a violation of a traffic regulation constitutes negligence per se or only evidence of negligence. The decisive factor is whether such violation contributed to and was the proximate cause of the injury suffered. * * * ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In order to find Southern Freightways, Inc. liable because of Grayson’s acts, it was necessary to establish two facts; (1) that Grayson was acting within the scope of his employment; and (2) that he was guilty of actionable negligence. The first fact was admitted. Grayson’s admissions against his interest were properly admitted to establish his negligence. These admissions constituted evidence from which the jury could find together with other facts that he was liable for the accident. Any facts properly admitted to establish his liability were sufficient, without more, to impose liability upon his employer. “Let us assume that the court had instructed the jury that it could consider Grayson’s declarations only in determining his negligence and together with a general verdict had submitted these three special questions to the jury. “1. Was plaintiff guilty of contributory negligence? “2. Was Grayson guilty of negligence? “3. Was his negligence the proximate cause of the accident? If the jury had answered 'no’ to the first question and 'yes’ to questions 2 and 3, and then had returned a general verdict against Grayson and a general verdict in favor of Southern Freightways, Inc., would not the court have been required to sustain a motion for judgment against Southern Freightways, Inc., notwithstanding the general verdict in its favor? To hold otherwise would be to make a mockery of the law, because it would mean that the agent had been found guilty of actionable negligence, up”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Branch v. Dempsey
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.