Coffman v. Shearer’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 1980 · most notably Nocktonick Ex Rel. Matson v. Nocktonick (1980), Kelty v. Best Cabs, Inc. (1971)
30 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 Sponable v. Thomas · Holloway v. Telfer · Van Pelt v. Richards Paint & Paper Co. · McBeth v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Lahmeyer v. Massey
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . It would appear that in a damage suit for personal injury the inadmissibility of such testimony [liability insurance] and of the trial court’s duty to exclude it is no longer a subject of fair debate in this jurisdiction. And not only so, but it is only when such testimony gets into tire record inadvertently that its admission can be cured by a peremptory order of the court to strike it out and for the jury to disregard' it. . . . Where it has been deliberately brought into the case the presumption is that it was done to influence the jury improperly, and a mistrial should be declared. . . .””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In an action founded upon negligence where the jury find generally for the plaintiff, but in a special finding declare that the negligence of the defendant consisted of something not charged in the petition, it is the duty of the court to render judgment in defendant’s favor. (McBeth v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 364 , 148 Pac. 621 ; Spinden v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 474 , 148 Pac. 747 .)” (Syl. ¶ 2.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is, of course, elementary that in an action for damages for negligence the failure of the jury to find a defendant guilty on any ground of negligence charged in the petition is conclusive in his favor and judgment must be ordered accordingly, irrespective of the general verdict. (McBeth v. Railway Co., 95 Kan. 364 , 148 Pac. 621 ; Lahmeyer v. Massey, 137 Kan. 566, 573 , 21 P. 2d 380 .)””
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.