Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 327 U.S. 645 - Lavender v. Kurn

Lavender v. Kurn’s Empirical Analysis

327 U.S. 645 · 1946

Citation profile

2,286
cited by 2,286 later decisions
42
cited 42 times by the Supreme Court
30
states following
July 2022
most recently cited

1,391 federal appellate · 27 district · 541 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 2,286 later decisions (42 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969), Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad (1957)

1,391 federal appellate · 27 district · 541 state decisions — followed in 30 states

7470194619501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 45 U.S.C. § 51 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)

Relies on Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc. · Lavender v. Kurn

Cited together with Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Tiller v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad · Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad · Wilkerson v. McCarthy · Bailey v. Central Vermont Railway, Inc.

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 2,286 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “It is no answer to say that the jury's verdict involved speculation and conjecture. Whenever facts are in dispute or the evidence is such that fair-minded men may draw different inferences, a measure of speculation and conjecture is required on the part of those whose duty it is to settle the dispute by choosing what seems to them to be the most reasonable inference. Only when there is a complete absence of probative facts to support the conclusion reached does a reversible error appear. But where, as here, there is an evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict, the jury is free to discard or disbelieve whatever facts are inconsistent with its conclusion. And the appellate court's function is exhausted when that evidentiary basis becomes apparent, it being immaterial that the court might draw a contrary inference or feel that another conclusion is more reasonable.”
    121 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “every common carrier by railroad ... shall be liable in damages to any person suffering injury while he is employed by such carrier ... for such injury or death resulting in whole or in part from the negligence of any of the officers, agents, or employees of such carrier, or by reason of any defect or insufficiency, due to its negligence, in its cars, engines, appliances, machinery, track ... or other equipment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We hold, however, that there was sufficient evidence of negligence * * to justify the submission of the case to the jury and to require appellate courts to abide by the verdict rendered by the jury.”
    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.