44 Tenn. App. 238 - Smith v. Steele’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 1996
2 federal appellate · 17 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 37 Tenn. App. 371 - Monday v. Millsaps · 28 Tenn. App. 187 - Phillips v. Newport Et Ux. · 22 Tenn. App. 522 - Duling v. Burnett · 28 Tenn. App. 502 - Pratt v. Duck · 35 Tenn. App. 678 - Suzore v. Rutherford
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . [I]n a case where the . . . facts of the case are such that the jury can apply the doctrine and principle recognized as proper by the courts of Tennessee, referred to as the ‘Remote Contributory Negligence Rule’, when properly submitted to it by the proper charge of the Trial Court, and no other reversible error appears in the record, the appellate court should not reverse alone because of an alleged inadequacy in the amount of the recovery fixed by the jury, either by determining that the verdict was a compromise or was the result of sympathy, passion, malice or caprice, mistake, misapprehension or oversight.””
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.