Cloud v. Zellers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

73 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 73 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"* * * the reversal of the trial court's judgment was not justified unless an examination of the record as a whole leads to the conviction that the error was calculated to cause and probably did cause the jury to give the answers it did give to all issues which will support the judgment. * * * "The question of the prejudicial character of the testimony as it bears on the issues of contributory negligence is much the same as the question with which we were concerned in Mrs. Baird's Bread Co. v. Hearn, 157 Tex. 159 , 300 S.W.2d 646 . That case reached us on a question of jury misconduct, but the legal problem was the same as the problem in this case. * * * In refusing to hold that the improper testimony of the juror probably caused the jury to make the finding it did make on the contributory negligence issue, we emphasized that the impact of the statement of the juror on that issue `was rather remote and inferential'. * * * We also emphasized the fact that the jury had returned a verdict evidencing a discriminating effort to answer the issues intelligently and conscientiously from the evidence properly before them."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Eubank v. State · Consolidated Furniture Company v. Kelly

2. “Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the manner of the stop of the elevator on the occasion in question was due to the negligence of Otis Elevator Company, its agents, servants, or employees? ‘NEGLIGENCE’ means failure to use ordinary care; that is to say, failure to do that which a person of ordinary prudence would have done under the same or similar circumstances, ' or doing that which a person of ordinary prudence would not have done under the same or similar circumstances. ‘ORDINARY CARE’ means that degree of care which would be used by a person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances. Answer ‘We do’ or ‘We do not.’ We, the Jury, answer: We do not. Special Issue No. 3: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the manner of the stop of the elevator on the occasion in question was due to the negligence of Nix Professional Building, its agents, servants, or employees? ‘NEGLIGENCE,’ as used in Issue No. 3, means failure to use a high degree of care; that is to say, failure to do that which a very cautious, competent, and prudent person would have done under the same or similar circumstances, or doing that which a very cautious, competent, and prudent person would not have done under the same or similar circumstances. ‘HIGH DEGREE OF CARE’ means that degree of care which would have been used by a very cautious, competent, and prudent person under the same or similar circumstances. Answer ‘We do’ or ‘We do not.’ We, the Jury, a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. DeLeon v. Otis Elevator Co.