Pool ex rel. Pool v. Day’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
2 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably Ling v. Jan's Liquors (1985), Henry Ex Rel. Henry v. Bauder (1974)
2 district · 23 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 Dennick v. Railroad Co. · Reilly v. Antonio Pepe Co. · Loranger v. Nadeau · Stout v. Gallemore · Koster v. Matson
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . whether or not objections and motions to strike out have been promptly made, it has been held to be the duty of the trial court to carefully exclude all highly prejudicial matter from the jury, and admonish the jury to wholly disregard the same in the hope thereby of avoiding a mistrial or the necessity of ,a new trial on account of the possible prejudice and passion created thereby in the minds of the jurors.” (p. 200.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . It would appear that in a damage suit for personal injury the inadmissibility of such testimony 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 the 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. (Holloway v. Telfer, 136 Kan. 80 , 12 P. 2d 826 .) 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. (Van Pelt v. Richards Paint & Paper Co., 132 Kan. 581 , 296 Pac. 737 ; Crossler v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 51 Ida. 413 , 80 A. L. R. 463; 20 R. C. L. 178.) . . .” (p. 181.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In an action for the recovery of damages for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident, the liability of the defendant is to be determined by the laws of the state where the injury was sustained, and such liability may be enforced in the courts of this state, which have jurisdiction of the subject matter and can obtain jurisdiction of the parties, unless such enforcement is contrary to the laws, public policy and good morals of this state.” (Syl. 1.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McDaniel v. Sinn
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.