Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 52 U.S. 362 - George Parks Administrator of Samuel Parks v. John Ross

George Parks Administrator of Samuel Parks v. John Ross’s Empirical Analysis

52 U.S. 362 · 1850

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
27
cited 27 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 9 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman (1969), Brady v. Southern Railway Co. (1943)

28 federal appellate · 9 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states

160185018601870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Browning & Co. v. Grady · Wolfe v. Hauver

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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is undoubtedly the peculiar province of the jury to find all matters of fact, and the court to decide all questions of law arising thereon. But the jury has no right to assume the truth of any material fact without some evidence legally sufficient to establish it. It is therefore error in the court to instruct the jury that they may find a material fact, of which there is no evidence from which it may be legally inferred. Hence the practice of granting an instruction like the present, which makes it imperative upon the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, and which in many states has superseded the ancient practice of a demurrer to evidence. It answers the same puipose, and should be tested by the same rules. A demurrer to evidence admits, not only the facts stated therein, but also every conclusion which a jury might fairly or reasonably infer therefrom.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““As regards him the rule is, that he is not responsible on any contract he may make in that capacity; and wherever his contract or engagement is connected with a subject fairly within the scope of his authority, it shall be intended to have been made officially, and in his public character, unless the contrary appears by satisfactory evidence of an absolute and unqualified engagement to be personally liable.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Where there is no evidence tending to prove a particular fact, the court are bound so to instruct the jury, when requested; but they cannot legally give any instruction which shall take from the jury the right of weighing the evidence and determining what effect it shall have.”
    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.