Starkweather v. Conner’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
2 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer (1966), State v. Corby (1958)
2 district · 38 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 Kirby v. Tallmadge · Duggan v. Bay State Street Railway Co. · Kentucky Utilities Co. v. McCarty's Administrator · McClenahan v. Keyes · Sheldon v. Wright
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * There is a great difference between an `inference' and a `presumption.' An inference is a deduction drawn from certain facts by the reason, while a presumption is an arbitrary conclusion which the law says must be drawn from certain facts, which conclusion may be either reasonable or unreasonable. * * *"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is the rule that, where the existence or nonexistence of a certain fact is within the peculiar knowledge of a witness, and he fails to testify as to the fact, the trier of fact may justly draw the inference that the true fact is against his interest,” Starkweather v. Conner, 44 Ariz. 369, 377 , 38 P.2d 311, 314 (1934).”
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.