Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 N.C. 314 - Crisp v. Medlin

Crisp v. Medlin’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1989

12 state decisions

60196519701980decided

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 Bridges v. Graham · Lane v. Bryan · Lane v. Dorney · Mills v. Moore · Mills v. . Moore

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is also true that negligence need not be established by direct and positive evidence, but may be established by circumstantial evidence, either alone or in combination with direct evidence. * * * ‘A basic requirement of circumstantial evidence is a reasonable inference from established facts. Inference may not be based on inference. Every inference must stand upon some clear and direct evidence, and not upon some other inference or presumption.’ * * * The plaintiff, to carry her case to the jury against defendant on the ground of actionable negligence, must offer evidence sufficient to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and into the field of legitimate inference from established facts. * * * The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is not applicable upon a mere showing of the wreck of an automobile on the highway.” Crisp v. Medlin, 264 N.C. 314, 317 , 141 S.E. 2d 609 (1965). cf. Clark v. Scheld, 253 N.C. 732 , 117 S.E. 2d 838 (1960).”
    2 later decisions 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.