Bryson v. Hines’s Empirical Analysis
268 F. 290 · 1920
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1983
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Savings Bank v. Ward · Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms · Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co. · United States v. American Sugar Refining Co. · United States v. Burr
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.
““But tbe opposite rule applies where the person selling or furnishing the article or instrumentality knows it to be dangerous, and also knows it will bo used by other persons not aware of the danger; and this rule holds, even if the person to whom the article was sold knows the danger. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Deselms, 212 U. S. 159 , 179, 29 Sup. Ct. 270 . 53 L. Ed. 453 ; O’Brien v. American Bridge Co., 110 Minn. 364 , 125 N. W. 1012 , 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 980 , 136 Am. St. Rep. 503 , and numerous authorities cited; Huset v. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 120 Fed. 865 , 57 C. C. A. 237 , 61 L. R. A. 303 . In such ease the additional tort of the buyer in concealing tlie danger does not cancel that of the stiller; the person injured has his remedy against two wrongdoers, instead of one.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think there can be no recovery for negligence in putting light wooden cars between heavy steel ears, in consequence of which the wooden cars were crushed by the derailment. The officers of the army had entire control of the arrangement of the cars, and for their negligence in this respect there was no right of action against either of the defendants.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It follows that, if the negligent cop si ruction described in the testimony vas a proximate cause of the accident, the plaintiffs bad a vested right of ecflon against the railroad when it occurred on May 30, 19.18.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Heise v. Davis
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.