Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 675 S.W.2d 729 - Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp.

Morgan v. Compugraphic Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

158
cited by 158 later decisions
5
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 147 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 158 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably American Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Grinnell (1997), Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Crye (1995)

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 147 state decisions

53019841990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 5th District (Dallas))

Relationships

Relies on Stoner v. Thompson · Womack v. Berry · Landers v. East Texas Salt Water Disposal Co. · Kansas University Endowment Ass'n v. King · Walker v. Louisiana ex rel. Joint Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities

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

  1. “[l]ay testimony is adequate to prove causation in those cases in which general experience and common sense will enable a layman to determine, with reasonable probability, the causal relationship between the event and the condition.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “is necessary to ascertain the amount of damages to which the plaintiff is entitled.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he evidence shows that Morgan had always been in good health prior to returning to work from her vacation. Upon returning to her job, she worked with her face two inches from a typesetting machine which, it is admitted by default, was leaking chemical fumes. Soon after resuming her employment, that is, soon after being exposed to the fumes emanating from the typesetting machine, Morgan experienced problems with “breathing and swelling and the like.” After four or five days of being constantly exposed to these fumes during her working hours, Morgan developed symptoms such as watering of the eyes, blurred vision, headaches and swelling of the breathing passages. We believe this evidence establishes a sequence of events from which the trier of fact may properly infer, without the aid of expert medical testimony, that the release of chemical fumes from the typesetting machine caused Morgan to suffer injury.”
    3 later decisions 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.