76 So. 2d 657 - Johnson v. Dicks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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

1. “"It is this lack of direct evidence that presents the principal problem in this case. The problem, however, is more fanciful than real because the law has always recognized the validity of inferences as evidence when such inferences are logically and naturally drawn from admitted or known facts. Inferences which naturally flow from admitted or known facts are just as valid as evidence as statements of eyewitnesses. If this were not the rule, the cause of the death of an employee to which there were no eyewitnesses would be most difficult to prove and could well result in manifest injustices. This is particularly true in workmen's compensation cases where the claimant is not bound by the preponderance of evidence rules or the rule which requires proof to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. We have repeatedly held that, while a claimant in compensation cases may not recover on mere speculation or conjecture, if the proof furnishes a reasonable basis for an inference that death or injury resulted from an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, that is sufficient."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Reed v. Whitmore Electric Co. · 156 So. 2d 494 - Carraway v. Armour and Company

2. “"This court is committed to the doctrine that when a serious injury is conclusively shown and a logical cause for it is proven, he who seeks to defeat recovery for the injury has the burden of overcoming the established proof and showing that another cause of the injury is more logical and consonant with reason. [Citations omitted.] The proof of appellees falls far short of this standard. No other rule could possibly give the force and effect to Workmen's Compensation that the makers proposed for it. Even in doubtful cases the doubt should be resolved in favor of the claimant."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 So. 2d 286 - Pridgen v. International Cushion Company

3. “* * * where a logical cause was shown for the injury, it became a responsibility of the carrier or employer to overcome such proof by showing that another cause was more logical and consonant with reason.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 So. 2d 494 - Carraway v. Armour and Company