Anderson v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Public policy forbids that after the jury has tried the case the court shall, on motion for new trial, proceed to try the jury. A verdict may not be impeached by an inquiry which reaches a juror's views or the reasons for those views ( L. & W. Rly. Co. v. Anderson, 41 Kan. 528 , 21 Pac. 588 ), or which reaches what influenced those views ( Matthews v. Langhofer, 110 Kan. 36 , 202 Pac. 634 ; Jones v. Webber, 111 Kan. 650 , 207 Pac. 837 ; Stone v. City of Pleasanton, 115 Kan. 378 , 223 Pac. 312 ). Besides that, the jury being what it is, jurors will act like human beings in the jury room, and will indulge in bluster and hyperbole and animated irrelevancies. Not only does the law presume a juror respects the obligation of his oath and votes his convictions, but generally he in fact does so; and due allowance must be made for some exuberance in jury-room discussion or the court must keep on granting new trials in important cases until a perfectly spiritless jury can be secured ..." (l.c. 758.)”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dunn v. White · Newell v. City Ice Co.

2. ““Clearly such a rule should not be applied to a driver who, notwithstanding the blinding lights, could know to a certainty there was no obstruction immediately beyond the point of relief from the dazzling lights. If a vigilant driver, proceeding at a moderate rate of speed, should be reasonably sure he might safely go forward without stopping, he would not necessarily be negligent in doing so. Therefore the question ultimately resolves itself into one of reasonable care under all the circumstances.” (p. 755.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Newman v. Case · Drennan v. Pennsylvania Casualty Co.

3. “Contributory negligence on the part of Floyd Anderson prevents recovery by his father, and for present purposes, the action may be regarded as one by Floyd Anderson. Manifestly one chargeable with the duties and responsibilities of operator of a motor vehicle on a highway may not, in his own action against another motorist, relieve himself of the consequences of contributory negligence on the ground the defendant ought to have anticipated the plaintiff would be guilty of negligence contributing to his injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burns v. Fisher