Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 173 Okla. 355 - Beasley v. Bond

Beasley v. Bond’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
7
states following
May 1971
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently May 1971 · most notably Olguin v. Thygesen (1943), 95 Okla. Crim. 60 - Toms v. State (1952)

1 federal appellate · 36 state decisions

15019351940195019601970decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Skeel · Neeley v. Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co. · Producers' Lumber Co. v. Butler · Cosden Pipe Line Co. v. Berry · Yoast v. Sims

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

  1. ““It is the positive duty of the master to use reasonable care in providing safe tools, machinery, and appliances with which to work. Ruemmeli-Braun v. Cahill, 14 Okla. 422 , 79 P. 260 ; Neeley v. Southwestern Cotton Seed Oil Co., 13 Okla. 356 , 75 P. 537 , 64 L. R. A. 145. And the question as to whether a negligent act involving breach of duty on the part of the master to his servant is the proximate cause of the servant’s injury is one of fact for the jury, if there is evidence reasonably tending to prove the same. Cushing Gasoline Co. v. Hutchins, 93 Okla. 13 , 219 P. 408 .””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““In permitting this practice, the courts proceed on the theory that if such questioning be interpreted by the jury as an inference that an insurance company is back of the defendant, thus invading the defendant’s rights, nevertheless the plaintiff has the equally important right to elicit from the prospective jurors sufficient information that he may intelligently exercise his right of challenge. It is well known that plaintiffs rightfully object to juries composed of men who by the very nature of their business adopt an attitude of mind antagonistic to the payment of such claims as plaintiff is at the time presenting in court. Since perfection is often impossible, the conjecture that defendant may be improperly prejudiced by such voir dire examination is looked upon as merely an unfortunate possibility which, notwithstanding, is not permitted to override the valuable right of plaintiff to try his case before disinterested parties — a choice of the lesser of two evils.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The manner.of attempting to move it on the occasion of the injury to plain tiff’s intestate without an adequate force of men might reasonably be attributed to the lack of the kind of organization and executive planning and direction it was the master’s duty to supply. Whether any such inferences as are suggested in the foregoing discussion should have been drawn by the jury as the triers of the facts is, of course, another matter. But it was, we think, properly a matter for the jury’s determination in the light of all the facts and circumstances.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.