Bowman v. Puckett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

100 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “heedlessness or his reckless disregard of the rights of others”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rogers v. Blake · Forgus v. Hodnett

2. ““It is our opinion that the facts in evidence, including the speed greatly in excess of that permitted by the statute, the place, a heavily traveled highway and an important residence and business street of a city having a population of more than 6,000, the condition of the automobile, that is, the defective brakes, and respondent’s knowledge of that condition, tend strongly to prove that respondent was acting in a heedless and reckless disregard of the rights of others, or, stated in the language of the approved definition of gross negligence, that his act in driving at that rate of speed, under the circumstances, was the result of a conscious indifference to the rights or welfare of the person or persons to be affected by it. Missouri Pacific Ry. Co. v. Shuford, 72 Tex. 165 , 10 S.W. 408 . [4] Whether the act of respondent was of that character is determined by inference from what respondent did and the physical facts that existed at the time and that contributed to the accident. Scott v. Gardner, 137 Tex. 628, 636 , 156 S.W.Zd 513, 141 A.L.R. 50 ; Munves v. Buckley, Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 605 ; Frazer v. Brannigan, 228 Iowa 572 , 293 N.W. 50 ; Bushnell v. Bushnell, 103 Conn. 583 , 131 A. 432 , 44 A.L.R. 785 . We believe that the inference drawn by the trial court from the evidence in the record as to those facts is, at least, a reasonable inference. [5] The 'conscious indifference’ included in the definition of gross negligence is indifference 'to the rights or welfare of”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sims v. Smith · Hanks v. LaQuey

3. ““In the instant case there is more than the mere fact of driving at a high rate of speed. There is also more than thoughtlessness or inadvertence. Respondent was driving at a very high rate of speed before he reached the limits of the city and he persisted in that course of action after he entered the city and until he was well within the business district. “It is true that respondent’s conduct endangered his own life as well as that of his guest, that his guest was his friend, and that finally he did endeavor to reduce the speed by applying the brakes. These are circumstances, not conclusive, to be considered with the other facts and circumstances that have been discussed in determining the issue of fact, whether respondent was acting in heedless or reckless disregard of the rights of others.” 188 S.W.2d 575 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rogers v. Blake · Harbin v. Seale