Hill v. Hill’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is also a well-established rule in this state that in determining whether a plaintiff is guilty of contributory negligence when tested by demurrer, the question must be submitted to the jury if the facts are such that reasonable minds might reach different conclusions thereon. ( Hill v. Hill, 170 Kan. 721 , 228 P.2d 713 ; McCracken v. Stewart, [ 170 Kan. 129 , 223 P.2d 963 ] supra; Hukle v. Kimble, [ 169 Kan. 438 , 219 P.2d 434 ] supra; West's Kansas Digest, Negligence, § 136 [9]; 4 Hatcher's Kansas Digest [Rev. Ed.] Negligence, § 75.)"”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gardner v. Pereboom · In Re Estate of Lloyd

2. ““1. Do you find that plaintiff’s injuries were the result of an unavoidable accident, as defined in the Court’s instruction? Answer: No. “2. Please state how far west, in feet, the left wheels of the plaintiff’s car-were from the center line of the road at the time of the collision. Answer: Front wheel 4' & 7". Rear wheel 4' & 5". “3. Please also state how many feet it was from the right wheels of plaintiff’s car to the West edge of the west shoulder of the road. Answer: Approx. 5 to 6 ft. “4. How long was it after plaintiff stopped his car before the collision occurred? Answer: From 1 to 2 minutes. “5. Did plaintiff observe decedent’s truck at any time before the collision? Answer: No. “6. If you answer Question No. 5 in the negative, could plaintiff have seen the approaching truck had he looked? Answer: The plaintiff could have seen the truck at the time he looked if the approaching truck had been in sight. (No. 7 to be answered if question 5 was answered in the affirmative.) “8. How many feet west of the center line of the road was plaintiff when the collision occurred?. 'Answer: Estimated 3 ft. “9. Do you find defendant guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries? Answer: Yes. . ‘TO. If you answer Question No. 9 in affirmative, please state of what act or acts of negligence you find defendant guilty. Answer: The defendant failed in his duty to drive at a speed that would permit him to stop within the distance that his lights enable him to di”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of Lloyd