47 Tenn. App. 208 - Moon v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably Bailey v. State (1972), Stringer v. Cooper (1972)
4 federal appellate · 30 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 St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Pritchett · 3 Smith & H. 479 - Brenizer v. Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway · Weeks v. McNulty · 17 Tenn. App. 694 - Oliver v. Union Transfer Co. · 30 Tenn. App. 25 - Sepaugh v. Methodist Hospital
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It seems to be the rule in this State that where the owner of animals negligently allows them to run at large, he is liable for their resulting damages. But he is not liable if without his fault the animals have escaped from a pasture enclosed by a lawful fence or by an ordinary fence such as is generally required to restrain that kind of stock. Moreover, negligence is never presumed from an accident alone, but must be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence, or both. Nor is a jury permitted to speculate or guess as to the proximate cause of injury, but there must be evidence of a material and substantial nature from which negligence can be determined. Furthermore, under the “scintilla rule” as applied in our practice, a case does not have to be submitted to a jury where there is a mere spark or glimmer of evidence. The rule is also well settled that where there is no evidence of actionable negligence, or where all the elements necessary to make out a prima facie case of actionable negligence are lacking, it becomes a question of law for the court and not an issue of fact for the jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Way v. Bohannon
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.