Downs v. Choo’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 671 So. 2d 636 - Allen v. Mac Tools, Inc. (1996), 847 So. 2d 258 - Mississippi Dept. of Transp. v. Cargile (2003)
1 federal appellate · 41 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 444 So. 2d 358 - Brown v. Credit Center, Inc. · Bozza v. Vornado, Inc. · 629 So. 2d 595 - Daniels v. GNB, Inc. · 641 So. 2d 20 - Tharp v. Bunge Corp. · 597 So. 2d 1282 - Munford, Inc. v. Fleming
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) show that some negligent act of the defendant caused his injury; or (2) show that the defendant had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition and failed to warn the plaintiff; or (3) show that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient amount of time to impute constructive knowledge to the defendant, in that the defendant should have known of the dangerous condition.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“looks at all the evidentiary matters before [us] admissions in pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, affidavits, etc. The evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion has been made. If, in this view, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment should forthwith be entered in his favor. Otherwise, the motion should be denied.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[N]egligence may be established by circumstantial evidence in the absence of testimony by eyewitnesses provided the circumstances are such as to take the case out of the realm of conjecture and place it within the field of legitimate inference.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.