Banbery v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The record fails to disclose appellant made any objection to the verdict until after the jury was discharged. In that situation he is deemed to have waived any objections he might have thereto and cannot urge them for the first time upon a motion for a new trial or on appeal. [Citations.] This, it should be added, has long been the rule in this jurisdiction with respect to answers to special questions. [Citations.]” (pp. 68, 69.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 55 Kan. App. 2d 161 - Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.) · Corwine v. Maracaibo Oil Exploration Corp.

2. “"Broadly stated, the rule in this jurisdiction, and the one supported by the great weight of authorities in other jurisdictions, is that where a third person sustains indivisible injuries in a motor vehicle collision as a result of negligence on the part of the drivers of two other motor vehicles which is so related and interwoven in point of time that it appears the injuries would not have been received by the third person except for the successive and combined negligence of the others, those whose acts so united in producing the injuries will be held jointly and severally liable to the injured party and may be sued severally or jointly at his election. This, we may add, is the rule not only where the tortfeasors are acting together, or where there is a common design or purpose, or concert of action, or a breach of common duty owing by them, but also where their acts of negligence are separate and independent so long as they are so closely related and interwoven in point of time as to directly contribute to the cause of the accident. For well recognized legal treatises and cited decisions supporting the foregoing rule see 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, 946, § 257, also 65 C.J.S., Negligence, 639, 674, 685, §§ 102, 110 (a) (b)."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Duran v. Mission Mortuary

3. “the jury returned but one general verdict in which it found [Lewis] and [Noone] jointly liable.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 55 Kan. App. 2d 161 - Kloster v. Hancock (In Re Rockhill Pain Specialists, P.A.)