Texas Sling Company v. Emanuel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 state decisions

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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A presumption of fact cannot rest upon a fact presumed. The fact relied upon to support the presumption must be proved. “No inference of fact should be drawn from premises which are uncertain. Facts upon which an inference may legitimately rest must be established by direct evidence, as if they were the facts in issue. One presumption cannot be based upon another presumption.” 16 Cyc. 1051; Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Porter, 73 Tex. 304, 307 , 11 S.W. 324 . * * * ’ ””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Spragins v. Jiffy Food Stores, Inc. · New York Underwriters Insurance Co. v. Trustees of First Baptist Church of Ranger

2. ““It is one thing to imply negligence generally from the happening of an event, but quite another thing, when the defect in an instrumentality is unknown, to infer that the cause of the unknown defect would have been discovered had an inspection been made. In attempting to construct a bridge with these presumptions having no factual basis, the argument seems to run as follows: We do not know the specific cause of the event, but we assume that it was negligent in nature because the resulting event or accident would not have occurred in the absence of negligence and then, having thus established negligence, we supply the previously unknown cause by the simple assumption that there being no other explanation, we will simply infer that the unknown defect would have been discovered had an inspection been made. “General negligence is a recognized basis of tort liability, but the rules relating thereto are rather formalized and must be followed if a recovery is to be sustained upon that theory. A case tried upon specific acts or omissions of negligence is a different type of action. However, in the present case, the establishment of general negligence is reached by reasoning similar to that employed in a res ipsa loquitur case. The root issue — failure to inspect — generally the first to be decided, is reached by a species of backward reasoning, so to speak. It is an interesting but unsound technique. * * * ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Walker's Service & Equipment Co. v. Shipp · Thate v. Texas & Pacific Railway Co.

3. ““Ordinarily, when we hold that a jury’s findings relied upon to support a judgment lack support in the evidence as a matter of law, we render judgment rather than remand the case. However, this rule is not invariably applied. Both this court and the Courts of Civil Appeals ‘have a wide discretion in determining whether or not a case should be remanded for new trial on reversal.’ Yarbrough v. Booher, 141 Tex. 420 , 174 S.W.2d 47 , 150 A.L.R. 1369 (1943); Scott v. Liebman, 404 S.W.2d 288 (Tex.Sup.1966).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Maness v. Reese