Joske v. Irvine’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 933 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 944 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““From a careful examination of the cases, it appears (1) that it is the duty of the court to instruct a verdict, though, there be slight testimony, if its probative force be so weak that it only raises a mere surmise or suspicion of the existence of the fact sought to be established, such testimony, in legal contemplation,, falling short of being ‘any evidence’; and (2) that it is the duty of the court to determine whether the testimony has more than that degree of probative force. If it so determines, the law presumes that the jury could not ‘reasonably infer the existence of the alleged fact,’ and ‘that there is no room for ordinary minds to differ as to the conclusion to be drawn from it.’ The broad and wise policy of the law, formed in and descending to us through the crucibles of time, does not permit the citizen to be deprived of his property, his liberty, or his life upon mere surmise or suspicion, and places upon a trained judiciary the grave responsibility of determining as a question of law whether the testimony establishes more.””

   14 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Travelers Fire Ins. v. Taylor · O'Shea v. International Business MacHines Corp.

2. “`Since the scintilla doctrine has been exploded, both in England and in this country, the preliminary question of law for the court is, not whether there is literally no evidence, or a mere scintilla, but whether there is any that ought reasonably to satisfy the jury that the fact sought to be proved is established. If there is evidence from which the jury can properly find the question for the party on whom the burden of proof rests, it should be submitted; if not, it should be withdrawn from the jury.'”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. Lucas · Texas Vegetable Union v. Obets

3. ““Joske was urging the ofhcers to ferret out and recover if possible Ms goods which Irvine had received and had not returned, and’ that both he and the officers were endeavoring to ascertain from Irvine the circumstances attending their loss, so that they might be traced. This Joske had a clear legal right to do, and we are of opinion that from the mere exercise of this right the law will not permit the inference to be drawn 'that he ‘requested or directed’ the arrest, though it be conceded that but for its exercise the arrest would never have been made. It would be against reason to hold that the mere’ fact that a citizen has called upon the officer of the law to search for and recover his lost or stolen property will authorize the inference that he ‘requested or directed’ the arrest subsequently made.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. El Paso Electric Ry. Co. v. Crews