Scott v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 175 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 183 later decisions — most recently September 1998 · most notably 77 Cal. Rptr. 2d 25 - People v. Frye (1998), 49 Cal. 2d 652 - Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co. (1958)
8 federal appellate · 175 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 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · Smellie v. Southern Pacific Co. · 20 Cal. 2d 457 - Blank v. Coffin · People v. Shorts · Westberg v. Willde
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 183 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It is now well settled in this state that where a plaintiff by reason of loss of memory is unable to testify respecting his conduct at and immediately before the time of the accident, and produces no witnesses who testify to such facts, he is entitled to the benefit of the presumption that he was exercising due care. This presumption is itself evidence sufficient to create a conflict with the evidence produced by defendant, and requires that the issue of contributory negligence be submitted to the jury.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Napoli v. Hunt · Gioldi v. Sartorio“under circumstances which afford no indication that the testimony is the product of mistake or inadvertence ... is wholly irreconcilable with the presumption ... the latter is dispelled and disappears from the case.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““25. Evidence may be either direct or indirect. Direct evidence is that which proves a fact in dispute directly, without an inference or presumption, and which in itself, if true, conclusively establishes the fact. Indirect evidence is that which tends to establish a fact in dispute by proving another fact which, though true, does not of itself conclusively establish the fact in issue, but which affords an inference or presumption of its existence. Indirect evidence is of two kinds, namely, presumptions and inferences. “A presumption is a deduction which the law expressly •directs to be made from particular facts. Unless declared by law to be conclusive, it may be controverted by other evidence, direct or indirect; but unless so controverted, the jury is bound to find in accordance with the presumption. “An inference is a deduction which the reasoning of the jury draws from the facts proved. It must be found on a fact or facts proved and be such a deduction from those facts ‘as is warranted by a consideration of the usual propensities or passions of men, the particular propensities or passions of the person whose act is in question, the course of business, or the course of nature.’ ” “26. The law makes no distinction between direct and indirect evidence as to the degree of proof required to support a finding of fact. Negligence and proximate cause both maybe proved by indirect evidence, if it carries the convincing force needed to constitute a preponderance of the evidence.””
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.