Lopez v. Heesen’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently March 1997 · most notably Van Orman v. Nelson (1967), Brooks v. Beech Aircraft Corp. (1995)
2 federal appellate · 44 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 State v. Padilla · Millers' National Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois, and Cross-Appellees v. The Wichita Flour Mills Company, and Cross-Appellant. The Wichita Flour Mills Company, and Cross-Appellant v. Millers' National Insurance Company, Chicago, Illinois, and Cross-Appellees · Eickmann v. St. Louis Public Service Co. · United States Smelting Co. v. Parry · 122 Cal. App. 2d 666 - Wells Truckways, Ltd. v. Cebrian
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The conduct of others evidences the tendency of the thing in question; and such conduct e.g. in using chains on a hill, felt shoes in a powder-factory, railings around a machine, or in not using them is receivable with other evidence showing the tendency of the thing as dangerous, defective, or the reverse. But this is only evidence. The jury may find from other evidence that the thing was in fact dangerous, defective, or the reverse, and the maintenance was or was not negligence, in spite of the above evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * *. While this rule is subject to important qualifications, it was not intended to close any reasonable avenues to the truth in the investigation of questions of fact. In doubtful cases the doubt should be resolved in favor of its admissibility. * * * The admission of this particular evidence being within the discretion of the court, its decision will not be disturbed in view of the fact that the testimony had a legitimate bearing upon the questions at issue.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Gish v. Hart““Opinion evidence is admissible on the basis that it will aid the jury to understand the problem and lead them to the truth on the ultimate facts, and opinions may be disregarded by the jury in whole or in part. It is left to the jury to decide the issue. Seal v. Blackburn Tank Truck Service, 64 N. M. 282, 327 P.2d 797 ; and Hooper v. General Motors Corp., supra. [ 123 Utah 515 , 260 P.2d 549 .]””
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.