Barbara R. Gross v. Southern Railway Company, Nancy Ruth Canipelli v. Southern Railway Company’s Empirical Analysis
446 F.2d 1057 · 1971
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,213 Hill York Corporation v. American International Franchises, Inc., Gurn H. Freeman (1971), Abel v. Dubberly (2000)
20 federal appellate · 5 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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Barbara R. Gross v. Southern Railway Company, Nancy Ruth Canipelli v. Southern Railway Company · Braniff v. Jackson Ave.-Gretna Ferry, Inc. · Lincoln National Life Insurance v. Roosth · Robbins v. Milner Enterprises, Inc.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... . "In our former opinion where summary judgment in favor of the railroad defendant was reversed, we said that under the pleadings, affidavits, exhibits and depositions on file, there were issues of fact that should have been submitted to a jury, such as whether this was a `special circumstances' crossing, which was more than ordinarily dangerous and required special warnings; whether the train whistle was blown as required by statute; and whether any of the acts of negligence charged to the railroad constituted a proximate cause of the accident. Plaintiffs contend that our opinion has disposed of most of the issues herein and is `a mandatory blueprint for all subsequent proceedings.' Defendant disputes this contention. "An important threshold question, therefore, is whether our previous decision precluded the District Judge from giving due consideration to defendant railroad's motions for a directed verdict and later for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, on completion of a full trial on the merits. We have answered this question before on at least five occasions that the Trial Judge is free to consider such motions. It is settled in this Circuit, therefore, that prior denial of summary judgment does not rule out the possibility of a subsequent directed verdict. The earliest applicable decision of this Circuit is Robbins v. Milner Enterprises, Inc., 5 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 492 , in which we said that `[T]he existence of a genuine controversy [in connection with a moti”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury. * * * There must be a conflict in substantial evidence to create a jury question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“there was ample warning to the driver from highway signs as he approached the crossing . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.