Sam White Oldsmobile Co. v. Jones Apothecary, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently March 1983
5 federal appellate · 13 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 In Re King's Estate · Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Scharrenbeck · Roosth & Genecov Production Co. v. White · Bock v. Fellman Dry Goods Co. · Tudor v. Tudor
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 20. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that pursuant to such oral argument, John Goss, acting for and on behalf of American Powerstage Company, did furnish such twenty-foot boom section and twenty-foot boom pendant cable lines for use on the Koerhing 605 Crane ? Answer ‘We do’. “If you have answered Special Issue No. 20 ‘We do’, and only in that event, then answer: “SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 21. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that one of the twenty-foot boom pendant cables was not suitable for its intended use on the Koehring 605 Crane ? Answer ‘We do’. “If you have answered Special Issue No. 20 ‘We do’, and only in that event, then answer: “SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 22. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such act of John Goss, acting for and on behalf of American Pow-erstage Company, was a proximate cause of the accident of August 31, 1961 ? Answer ‘We do’.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““If a cause is shown that might produce an event and it being shown that an event of that particular character did occur, it may be inferred that the known possibility produced the result. Plaintiff is not required to exclude an appreciable chance that the event might have occurred in some other way. Expressed otherwise, a conclusion of casual connection may be inferred by a balance of probabilities.” (Emphasis supplied).”
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.