Branfoot v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
52 F. 390 · 1892
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1961 · most notably Pine River Logging Improvement Company v. United States (1902), Henkel v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Ry. Co. (1932)
9 federal appellate · 12 district ·
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 Inland & Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson · Hamilton v. The William Branfoot
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Another item was for money paid for a copy of the official stenographer’s notes, obtained for libelant by his counsel. This was simply for convenience, and not a copy necessarily obtained for use on the trial. The item was properly rejected.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is plain that in his judgment a prima facie case was made out, not simply from the mere happening of the accident, but because the surrounding circumstances raised the presumption that it happened in consequence of a failure of duty on the part of libelee. Undoubtedly there are cases where the very nature of an accident has been held of itself to supply the proof of negligence, but the conclusion was not rested on the mere naked, isolated fact of injury. The presumption of negligence was drawn from the fact of the injury, coupled with the circumstances surrounding its infliction, and characterizing the nature of the occurrence as attributable to want of the requisite care, or as demanding an explanation which the defendant alone could furnish.””
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.