Boor v. Lowrey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 federal appellate · 74 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““These were eases against surgeons for malpractice, and both turned upon the statute which requires actions for injuries to the person to be commenced within two years. In each it was held that the action was in form ex contractu, and that the statute limiting the time for the commencement of actions for injury to the person did not apply. What the paricular damages were which were claimed as the subject of the actions, respectively, does not clearly appear from tbe statement of tbe complaint in cither case. It must be assumed, however, that the actions were for the recovery of special damages, which had relation to property. They were not, therefore, actions to recover for injuries to the person. If they were, the conclusions reached could not be maintained. This assumption would seem to be justified by an examination of the authorities upon which the decisions are made to rest. Those which support the conclusion reached are cases involving injury to personal property. Dale v. Hall, 1 Wils. 281; Burnett v. Lynch, 5 Barn. & C. 589. It may be that actions ex contractu are maintainable for tbe recovery of special damages resulting from a breach of duty founded on contract, even though injury to the person results. The action thus maintainable, however, is not and cannot be predicated upon the personal injury, nor to recover damages resulting from injuries to the person. The action must involve injury to tlie estate, and not to the person. Where the primary cause of action is an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baltimore & O. R. v. Reed

2. ““After the death of Luther W. Hess was suggested on the record, the case stood to all intents and purposes in legal contemplation as a case against the surviving defendant alone. The proceedings thenceforth, so far as they treated the case as an action against two, were all erroneous, and the verdict having been returned against two, in an action to which in contemplation of law there was but one defendant, it was so radically defective as that no judgment could be pronounced upon it over a motion in arrest.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Grider v. Scharf

3. ““The action having been prosecuted jointly against the administrator of the deceased partner and the surviving partner, and a joint verdict having been returned against both, since the action had abated as respects the one, no judgment could rightfully be rendered on such verdict, over a motion in arrest against both, even if it could have been, at the plaintiff’s election, against the survivor.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Birkel v. Chandler