Bowman v. Redding & Co.’s Empirical Analysis
449 F.2d 956 · 1971
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 12 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Canterbury v. Spence (1972), Reuber v. United States (1984)
23 federal appellate · 12 district · 23 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 25 Cal. 2d 486 - Ybarra v. Spangard · 33 Cal. 2d 80 - Summers v. Tice · Ross v. Hartman · Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana Railroad · Lake Central Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n the ordinary negligence case involving automobiles, the legislative policy underlying traffic and kindred regulations is discernible as one that is intended to clarify and define the elements of due care. But such regulations are not intended to affect legal doctrines holding that a vehicle operator guilty of negligence — whether ascertained by a jury applying the broad common law standard or by a particular legislative standard — is not liable to an individual whose own negligence materially contributed to his injury. In such cases the defense of contributory negligence stands unaffected.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(2) Where the tortious conduct of two or more actors has combined to bring about harm to the plaintiff, and one or more of the actors seeks to limit his liability on the ground that the harm is capable of apportionment among them, the burden of proof as to the apportionment is upon each such actor. (3) Where the conduct of two or more actors is tortious, and it is proved that harm has been caused to the plaintiff by only one of them, but there is uncertainty as to which one has caused it, the burden is upon each such actor to prove that he has not caused the harm.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We conclude that this case is governed by the general guiding principle that a plaintiff's claim that his decedent's life continued, until terminated as a result of defendant's negligence, presents a question for the jury. The principle is undergirded by the more broadly applicable doctrine that in cases where the time of death is uncertain, there is a presumption of continuation of life. "`The federal rule, as we understand it, leaves the trier of fact free to rely on that presumption if the known circumstances are not strong enough for an affirmative finding that death occurred at some specific time.'"”
2 later decisions 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.