Runnells v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently August 2016
1 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.
Relationships
Relies on Bowman v. Henard · 6 Smith & H. 86 - Haskins v. Howard · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Lamb · Baldwin v. Knight · 44 Tenn. App. 238 - Smith v. Steele
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.
“It is within the common knowledge of laymen that where a patient is injured by a piece of wire imbedded in his foot, the foot has swollen to the point that the shoe may not be worn, the patient has difficulty in walking, there is soreness resulting from probing in an unsuccessful effort to remove it, and the foot is oozing and running, then the wire must be removed. These facts must be considered in the light of the action of [the second doctor] in reducing the infection and removing the wire. Even a barefoot boy knows that when his foot is infested by a sticker, splinter, thorn, pin, or other foreign object, it must be removed. Most assuredly this lies within the ken of a layman.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There is an additional matter we find troubling. This is the fact that in the face of a prima facie ease of negligence, the doctor declined to testify and failed to call witnesses. We fully recognize the general rule that a defendant in a civil case is not required to testify and has the right to rely upon the duty of the plaintiff to carry the burden of proof and to avail himself of the plaintiffs failure to make out a case. There is, however, another rule of law that we think applicable in this case. The Trial Judge charged the substance of the missing witness rule to indicate the unfavorable inferences arising from the unexplained failure of the defendant to produce evidence within his knowledge and control.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[Wjhere the evidence tends to fix liability on the defendant, and if he has it in his power to offer evidence to rebut the unfavorable inferences which the proof tends to establish, and neglects or refuses to offer such proof, it may be inferred from the facts shown that the fully developed evidence would establish liability upon his part. 140 Tenn. at 111 , 203 S.W. at 753. This rule applies, however, only “when the plaintiffs proof and the legal deduction therefrom make a prima facie case against the defendant.” Davis v. Newsome Auto Tire and Vulcanizing Co., 141 Tenn. 527, 529 , 213 S.W. 914 , 915 (1919). See also, Dukes v. McGimsey, 500 S.W.2d 448, 451 (Tenn.App.1973).”
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.