Special Fund v. Francis’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 109 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Western Baptist Hospital v. Kelly (1992), Metro Renovation, Inc. v. State Department of Labor (1996)
1 federal appellate · 109 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 Lee v. International Harvester Company · Blue Diamond Coal Company v. Stepp · Wagoner v. Smith · Twin Peak Coal Co. v. Woolum · Blue Diamond Coal Co. v. Blair
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the decision of the fact-finder favors the person with the burden of proof, his only burden on appeal is to show that there was some evidence of substance to support the finding, meaning evidence which would permit a fact-finder to reasonably find as it did. ... A finding which is unreasonable under the evidence presented is "clearly erroneous" and, perforce, would "compel" a different finding. Francis, 708 S.W.2d at 643 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the fact-finder finds against the person with the burden of proof, his burden on appeal is infinitely greater. It is of no avail in such a case to show that there was some evidence of substance which would have justified a finding in his favor. He must show that the evidence was such that the finding against him was unreasonable because the finding cannot be labeled “clearly erroneous” if it reasonably could have been made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Newberg v. Parsons“Any court, though required to follow precedent established by a higher court, can set forth the reasons why, in its judgment, the established precedent should be overruled but cannot, on its own, overrule the established precedent set by a higher court.”
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.