Furr v. McGrath’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 1997
4 federal appellate · 7 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 Nanty-Glo Boro. v. American Surety Co. · Emigh v. Andrews · Carter Oil Co. v. Independent Torpedo Co. · MacK v. Reading Company · Travelers Insurance v. Hulme
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * In refusing application of such doctrine to that case we cited the principle recognized in Champlin Refining Co. v. George, 182 Okl. 118 , 76 P.2d 895 , and applied in Emigh v. Andrews, 164 Kan. 732 , 191 P.2d 901 , and other cases, that: “ ‘ * * * the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur cannot be invoked until, as a preliminary proposition, a plaintiff established what thing caused the injury, and that the thing causing the injury was under the defendant’s control.’ ( 298 P.2d 451 .)” (Emphasis supplied.) Continuing, this court said: “We think the present case is more analogous to Travelers Ins. Co. v. Hulme, 168 Kan. 483 , 213 P.2d 645, 649 , 16 A.L.R.2d 793 , in which the Emigh case was discussed and, in speaking of the subject doctrine, the ‘thing’ causing the injury was referred to as the ‘initial’ or ‘foundation’ fact. There the foundation fact was said to be defendant’s use of the gasoline while working on the automobile, and the court further said: “ ‘Having supplied the “foundation fact” or “initial fact” or “thing” which produced the injury, the application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur will then infer negligence on the part of defendant in the doing or commission of the act.’ “In the present case, there must be no confusion or misapprehension about the fact that (according to plaintiff’s evidence) the cause of her injuries was the jack’s becoming disengaged from under the car in such a manner as to roll to ward, and strike, her. * * * ” (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.