Breeding v. Massey’s Empirical Analysis
378 F.2d 171 · 1967
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969), Myzel v. Fields (1967)
25 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 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 Hormel v. Helvering · Lake Shore Ry Co v. Prentice · Washington Gas Light Co. v. Lansden · Milwaukee and St Paul Railway Company v. Apms et al. · Hanson v. Ford Motor Co.
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(2) A party may set forth two or more statements of a claim or defense alternatively or hypothetically, either in one count or defense or in separate counts or defenses. When two or more statements are made in the alternative and one of them if made independently would be sufficient, the pleading is not made insufficient by the insufficiency of one or more of the alternative statements. A party may also state as many separate claims or defenses as he has regardless of consistency and whether based on legal or on equitable grounds, or on both. All statements shall be made subject to the obligations set forth in Rule 11."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The right of a plaintiff to try his case on alternate theories has uniformly been upheld in the federal courts and plaintiff cannot be required to elect upon which theory to proceed."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The trial court properly overruled the motions of Hugh Breeding, Inc., for a directed verdict and judgment n o. v. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict, the established rule is that the evidence, including all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, must be viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Nicklaus, 8 Cir., 340 F.2d 882, 885 ; Hanson v. Ford Motor Co., 8 Cir., 278 F.2d 586, 590 . “The motions would be entitled to be sustained only if there is no substantial evidence to support any ground for recovery.””
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.