Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 Ga. App. 229 - Cone v. Davis

66 Ga. App. 229 - Cone v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
4
states following
November 2008
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 70 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently November 2008 · most notably Sherry Ex Rel. Sherry v. Asing (1975), 122 Ga. App. 214 - Wright v. Dilbeck (1970)

9 federal appellate · 70 state decisions

2401941195019601970198019902000decided

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 Berry v. State · Burhans v. Burhans · Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Saul · Atlanta Street Railroad v. Walker · Atlanta Coach Co. v. Cobb

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

  1. “The injury here was substantive and of such a nature that a witness of only common knowledge could not with reasonable certainty know whether or not the injury would be permanent . . . It was error to allow a party who was a witness to testify that in her opinion her injury was permanent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Where the question under examination, and to be decided by the jury, shall be one of opinion, any witness may swear to his opinion or belief, giving his reasons therefor, but if the issue shall be as to the existence of a fact, the opinions of witnesses generally shall be inadmissible.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Negligence or no negligence was the very issue the jury were impanelled to try. It was the province of the jury to draw the conclusion that the defendant had been guilty [or not guilty] of negligence, and not the province of the witness, the [police officer].”
    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.