Krol v. Coryell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 22 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . the injured workman, his dependents or personal representatives shall have the right to take compensation under the act and pursue 'his or their remedy by proper action in a court of competent jurisdiction against such other person.” (G. S. 1945 Supp. 44-504.) (Our italics.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wise v. Morgan-Mack Motor Co. · Davis v. Reed

2. ““In support of its contention that the court erred in sustaining the portion of the motion to strike directed against the second clause of the prayer of the answer, appellant directs our attention to G. S. 1935, 60-401, and insists that in view of the record it compels a conclusion the deceased workman’s employer and the casualty company are the real parties in interest and must be substituted as parties. Conceding for present purposes such parties are the real parties in interest we do not agree. True enough the section just mentioned provides — in fact, the code of civil procedure since its enactment in 1868 has contained a similar provision — that every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. However, the same power which lays down a general rule of statutory procedure may limit or restrict the scope of its operation. In our opinion the legislature exercised the power possessed by it and created an exception to the general rule of the code when in enacting G. S. 1945 Supp. 44-504, it provided ‘and such employer may enforce same in his own name or in the name of the workman, dependents or personal representatives by proper action in any court of competent jurisdiction.’ (Emphasis supplied.) . . .” (p. 201.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rumbaugh v. Vonfeldt

3. ““1. The petition, filed just two weeks before barred by statute, purports to state a cause of action in the name of Bernieta Peterson ‘for and on behalf of herself and the next of kin of Darryl J. Peterson,’ whereas the answer shows that the New Amsterdam Casualty Company is the real party in interest. “2. The petition fails to allege that this action was commenced by or at the instance of or for the use and benefit of the New Amsterdam Casualty Company and fails to show that the action was in fact commenced in the name of the above named plaintiff for the use and benefit of the A. S. Elliott Fruit and Grocery Company and the New Amsterdam Casualty Company. “3. Bernieta Peterson Krol has no interest in the outcome of this law suit, and the Supreme Court has determined that she had no cause of action at the time when this action was filed. “4. No cause of action was properly alleged within the period of two years after the alleged accident, and it is now too late to amend the petition or substitute parties. “5. The omission from the petition of any allegation showing the real party in interest is fatal herein.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Krol v. Coryell