Williams v. Cavender’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 1998 · most notably Graham Ex Rel. Bodine v. Conner (1967), Housman v. Fiddyment (1967)
29 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 Hamre v. Conger · Lewis Ex Rel. Piening v. Zagata · Burr v. Singh · Lappin v. Prebe · Filkins v. Snavely
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Commission is the trier of fact and may draw reasonable inferences from the facts that it sees fit to draw. Snowbarger v. M.F.A., 349 S.W.2d 224, 225 (Mo.banc 1961). However, the Commission may not base its findings on conjecture. Lunn v. Columbian Steel Tank Co., 364 Mo. 1241 , 275 S.W.2d 298, 301 (1955). The court, in Williams v. Cavender, 378 S.W.2d 537 (Mo.1964) stated: ‘For the inference to be legitimate the circumstances must of course point to the desired conclusion with reasonable certainty; and it is not enough that they may be merely consistent with such a conclusion, or that they may give equal support to inconsistent and contradictory conclusions.’ Id. at 541 .””
2 later decisions 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.