Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 8 COLO 79 - Sanderson v. Frazier

Sanderson v. Frazier’s Empirical Analysis

1884

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2014

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

3018841890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Farish & Co. v. Reigle · Wall v. Livezay · McLean v. Burbank

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. ““A prima facie case, however, is made out by proof that the relation of carrier and passenger existed between the parties; that an accident occurred resulting in injury to the passenger, and that it was occasioned by the failure of some portion of the machinery, appliances or means provided for the transportation of the passenger. This proof being-made, a presumption of negligence on the part of the carrier arises, and the plaintiff is not bound to go further and show the particular defect or cause of the accident, until the presumption is rebutted.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In such action the facts that the coach was upset, and the plaintiff injured, are sufficient prima facie evidence of negligence or want of skill of the driver, and shift the burden of proof upon the defendant to show that the driver was in every respect qualified to act with reasonable skill and the utmost caution ; and if the disaster was occasioned by the least want of skill or of prudence on Ms part, the defendant was answerable.””
    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.