Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 MO 303 - Gray v. McDonald

Gray v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

1891

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
5
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, Illinois on May 25, 1979 (1981), Haehl v. Wabash Railroad (1893)

3 federal appellate · 32 state decisions

1001891190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Parsons v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Porter v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad · Morgan v. Durfee · White v. Maxcy · Proctor v. Hann. & St. Joe. R. R.

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

  1. ““This section [the third section of the damage act], like the preceding one, does not, as is often supposed, create a new cause of action when the injured person would have had one had death not ensued. In other words, the cause of action does not abate by reason of the death of the person injured. * * * If the injured party would have had a common-law or statutory cause of action had death not ensued, then the cause of action survives lo the designated person.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““In every such action the jury may give such damages, not exceeding five ■thousand dollars, as they may deem fair and .just, with reference to the necessary injury resulting from such death, to' tlie surviving parties who may bo entitled to sue, and also having regard to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending such wrongful act, neglect or default.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The objection that the instruction did not allow the jury to take into consideration mitigating circumstances has no merit, for not a single circumstance was withdrawn from their consideration. Under it they were obliged to consider all the circumstances, even in awarding exemplary damages.” .”
    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.