Gilchrist v. Eustrom’s Empirical Analysis
69 F. 794 · 1895
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 1942
13 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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 Hardee v. Wilson · Knickerbocker Life Ins Co v. Pendleton · Northern Central Railway Co. v. State ex rel. Price · Johnson v. . the Hudson River Railroad Company · Inland Coasting Co v. Tolson
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It Is very improbable that, if Kennedy had seen the train coming, he would have attempted to cross when so far from the track that he could not reach it with his wagon wheels before the coming of the train. The presumption of fact, and of law, too, would be against the existence of such wanton and reckless negligence, and the plaintiff was entitled to have the jury weigh the credibility of Hiss Caldwell’s evidence in the light of the circumstances.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While it is true that, in an action for personal injuries based upon the negligence of the defendant, it is an essential element of the plaintiff’s ease that the injured party must have been in the exercise of ordinary care, yet it is not indispensable that such fact should be directly shown by affirmative evidence. There is in all men a natural instinct of self-preservation, and such instinct is an element of evidence of which the jury may take notice, and, in the absence of all testimony upon the subject, find that a deceased party, in obedience to the ordinary instincts of mankind, exercised that care for his safety which a prudent man would, under the same conditions, have made use of.” “The natural instinct,” says Agnew. J., in Allen v. Willard, 57 Pa. St. 874 , 380, “which leads men in their sober senses to avoid injury and preserve life, is an element of evidence. In all questions touching the conduct of men, motives, feelings, and natural instincts are allowed to have their weight, and to constitute evidence for the consideration of courts and juries.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The libelant was not on the vessel as a mere licensee. He was there in the discharge of an official duty, in which the vessel itself had an interest, for it could not receive its cargo until it had been inspected. The right and duty of the libelant to inspect the vessel did not authorize him to take command of her, or to give orders to her crew to prepare her for inspection, or light up the vessel for that purpose. It was the master’s duty to prepare the vessel for inspection, to furnish what was necessary and proper for that purpose, and to exercise reasonable precaution for the safety of the libelant while in the discharge of his official duties. * * * The master of the vessel knew the libelant had come on board to discharge his official duty as inspector, and he knew what was necessary to enable him to discharge that duty efficiently and properly.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.