Malm v. Thelin’s Empirical Analysis
1896
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1917
2 federal appellate · 8 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.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The presumption is that a servant employing machinery obviously defective has assumed the risk occasioned by the use of such machinery, and in order to recover he must rebut that presumption, and in order to rebut it he must not only prove, but he must plead, the facts which create an exception to the .rule — as, for instance, that on complaint to the master a promise was made to remove the defect and the machinery was used relying upon that promise. In Missouri P. R. Co. v. Baxter, 42 Neb. 793 , 60 N. W. 1044 , a judgment was reversed because the petition did not plead such exceptions; and in Dehning v. Detroit Bridge & Iron Works, 46 Neb. 556 , 65 N. W. 186 , an amendment had been required in a similar case before the plaintiff was permitted to introduce evidence of such exceptions.””
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.