Bollinger v. Schaff’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently November 1958
9 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 Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives · Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburg Railroad v. Hutchinson · Montgomery v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co. · Railway Co. v. Amos · Richmond v. Chicago & West Michigan Railway Co.
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, including the fact that plaintiff had some reason to think a train was not coming when she did not see the flagman there, and her duties in relation to the situation, we cannot say as a matter of law that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence which precludes her recovery. . . . (McClain v. Railway Co., 89 Kan. 24 , 130 Pac. 646 ; Williams v. Railroad Co., 89 Kan. 35 , 53 Pac. 834 ; Weston v. Hines, 107 Kan. 625 , 193 Pac. 340 .)” (p. 128.)”
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.