113 F. Supp. 10 - Kisor v. Tulsa Rendering Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently December 2003
7 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
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 Hill v. Wilson · Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Ark. v. Adcox · St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Ward · Snow v. Riggs · Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Blytheville v. Doud
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule of damages applicable to personal injuries is stated in Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Arkansas v. Adcox, 189 Ark. 610 , at page 613, 74 S.W.2d 771 , at page 772, as follows: “ ‘The measure of damages for a physical injury to the person may be broadly stated to be such sum, so far as it is susceptible of estimate in money, as will compensate plaintiff for all losses, subject to the limitations imposed by the doctrines of natural and proximate consequences, and of certainty, which he has sustained by reason of the injury, including compensation for his pain and suffering, for his loss of time, for medical attendance and support during the period of his disablement, and for such permanent injury and continuing disability as he had sustained. Plaintiff is not limited in his recovery to specific pecuniary losses as to which there is direct proof, and it is obvious that certain of the results of a personal injury are unsusceptible of pecuniary ad-measurement’. “See also, Hot Springs Street Railway Company v. Hill, 198 Ark. 319 , 128 S.W.2d 369 ; St. Louis-San Francisco Railway Co. v. Herndon, 198 Ark. 465 , 129 S.W.2d 954 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Keaton v. McCook““A person operating a motor vehicle upon the highways of the State of Arkansas must keep a lookout for vehicles or persons who may be upon the highway and must keep his motor vehicle under such control as to be able to check the speed or stop it, if necessary, to avoid injury to others when danger is apparent. Craighead v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., 8 Cir., 195 F.2d 652, 656 ; Livingston v. Baker, 202 Ark. 1097 , 155 S.W.2d 340 ; Loda v. Raines, 193 Ark. 513, 517 , 100 S.W. 2d 973 ; Lockhart v. Ross, 191 Ark. 743, 752 , 87 S.W.2d 73 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.