Hepp v. Quickel Auto & Supply Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 62 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently September 1995 · most notably Buchanan v. Downing (1964), Mares v. New Mexico Public Service Co. (1938)
2 federal appellate · 62 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 Pope v. Reading Company · Plumb v. . Richmond Light R.R. Co. · Cobb v. Twitchell · Burghardt v. Detroit United Railway · Hardwick v. Wabash Railroad
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defendant also urges the propriety of the trial court’s ruling upon the ground .that any verdict for the plaintiff would of necessity be supported by raising ‘presumption on presumption.’ We are not impressed that such is or would be the case. “ ‘Reasonable inferences drawn from affirmative facts proven are evidence, and not presumptions built upon other presumptions, as suggested by defendant.’ Hardwick v. Wabash R. Co., 181 Mo.App. 156 , 168 S.W. 328, 330 . See, also, Southwest Cotton Co. v. Clements, 25 Ariz. 124 , 213 P. 1005 ; Nicol v. Geitler, [ 188 Minn. 69 ], 247 N.W. 8 ; Gray v. Hammond Lumber Co., 113 Or. 570 , 232 P. 637 , 233 P. 561 , 234 P. 261 . Cf. 1 Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.) § 41, p. 258.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lopez v. Townsend“But, where the facts and circumstances surrounding the injury themselves point with sufficient definiteness to negligence on the part of defendant to warrant an inference thereof, then the reason for an application of the rule [res ipsa loquitur] fails. The plaintiff under such circumstances is entitled to reach the jury, not by reason of any presumption deduced from common experience, but by force of permissible inferences from the evidence itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * It (doctrine of res ipsa loquitur) is recognized as a rule of necessity, and is based upon the postulate that under the common experience of mankind an accident of the particular kind does not happen except through negligence. It bases its chief claim to justification on the fact that ordinarily the cause of the injury is accessible to the party charged and inaccessible to the person injured.””
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.