Krametbauer v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 82 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently February 2016 · most notably Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company (1967), Brown v. Cobb (1949)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 82 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 Mashington Gaslight Co v. District of Columbia · Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha v. Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad Company · The Philadelphia and Trenton Railroad Company v. James Stimpson · Boston Woven Hose & Rubber Co. v. Kendall · Kelly v. Carmichael
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he cross examination of a witness should be limited to those facts and circumstances connected with the matters inquired of in the direct examination, except as to those tending to discredit or impeach the witness, or to show his bias or prejudice, or the like. * * * But cross examination is not confined to the identical details testified to in chief, but extends to its entire subject matter * * * and to all matters that may modify, supplement, contradict,, rebut, or make clearer the facts testifie(l to in chief by the witness on direct examination. * * * ****** It should be stated that the scope of cross examination must necessarily rest largely in the sound discretion of the court because of the difficulty in ruling precisely on the questions that arise in nearly all contested cases. The trial judge is clothed with a large discretion in the application of the rule. * * * It is much safer to resolve the doubts in favor of the cross examiner than to risk excluding testimony that should be admitted.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““‘Negligent conduct may be either* “ ‘(a) an act which the' actor as a reasonable man should realize " as involving an unreasonable risk of ,caus: ing an invasion of an interest of another, or “‘(b) a failure to do an act which is necessary for the protection or. assistance of another and which the actor is under a duty to do.’ Sec. 284 Restatement of the Law of Torts.7”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The general rule is that one tortfeasor cannot recover indemnity from another where their joint concurring acts were the proximate cause of the damage.””
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.