Butler v. Chrestman’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Gallimore v. Children's Hospital Medical Center (1993), 66 Wis. 2d 394 - Shockley Ex Rel. Shockley v. Prier (1975)
35 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 Fowler Butane Gas Co. v. Varner · Planters Wholesale Grocery v. Kincade · Terry v. Smylie · MOCK v. Natchez Garden Club · Jester v. Bailey
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where the only purpose of photographs is to influence and prejudice the jury they should be excluded, but where they visualize the injury at a stage subsequent to the accident, they may not be excluded solely because they may contain emotional overtones. Jensen v. South Adams County Water and Sanitation District, 149 Colo. 102 , 368 P.2d 209 (1962), and Godvig v. Lopez, 185 Or. 301 , 202 P.2d 935 (1949). Caution again is stated to trial judges to preview such evidence to determine its probative value as against its prejudicial effects upon a jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`[T]hat if reasonable men might have a difference of opinion as to whether or not the negligence of the actor constituted a substantial factor in bringing about the injury, then the question is for the jury. We have also held repeatedly in cases too numerous to mention that upon a motion for a directed verdict all the facts expressly testified to, and all inferences necessarily and logically to be deduced therefrom, are to be taken as true in favor of the party against whom the motion is asked, and that a case should not be withdrawn from the jury unless the conclusion follows as a matter of law that no recovery can be had upon any view which can be properly taken of the facts which the evidence tends to establish, and further that if more than one reasonable inference can be drawn from the facts the question of negligence is for the jury." See also Ezell v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 228 So.2d 890 (Miss. 1969); New Orleans & Northeastern RR Co. v. Weary, 217 So.2d 274 (Miss. 1968); and First Nat'l Bk. of Vicksburg v. Cutrer, 214 So.2d 465 (Miss. 1968)." 264 So.2d at 815 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"... if a minor sustains personal injuries under such circumstances of wilfulness, aggravation, or oppression as to justify an imposition of exemplary or punitive damages, upon the wrongdoer, the right of recovery thereof is in the child, and that there can be no recovery of the item by the parent in his own right." It is also said: "... that the measure of damages in a parent's action for injuries to a minor child, other than a case of seduction, is the actual damage which the plaintiff has suffered..."”
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.