Pope v. Pope’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 24 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To preserve the question of submissibility for appellate review in a jury-tried case, a motion for directed verdict must be filed at the close of all the evidence and, in the event of an adverse verdict, an after-trial motion for a new trial or to set aside a verdict must assign as error the trial court’s failure to have directed such a verdict. Failure to move for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence waives any contention that plaintiff failed to prove a submissible case.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Allstate Indemnity Co. · Howard v. City of Kansas City

2. “Therefore, Gillemvaters is no longer good law on the requirements of Rule 72.01, and has not been good law on that subject since the amended Rule 72.01 took effect on January 1, 1975. Likewise, Gillenwaters ’ progeny, three cases all decided by the Eastern District of this court, is also bad law when it comes to Rule 72.01(a), because in each of those cases, the court relied on Gillen-waters without properly taking into account the subsequent changes in Rule 72.01, which effectively eliminated whatever liberality might previously have been applied to after-trial motions for judgment. See Frisella, 583 S.W.2d at 731-32 ; Muchisky, 741 S.W.2d at 45 n. 2; Baldridge [v. Lacks], 883 S.W.2d [947] 953 [(MoApp. E.D.1994)]. Moreover, in deciding those cases, the Eastern District did not mention its previous decision in Quality Dairy Co. v. Openlander, 456 S.W.2d 608 (Mo.App. E.D. 1970), where the defendant’s motion for directed verdict “stated only generally that ‘plaintiffs have failed to make a submissible case.’ ” Id. at 609 . The court held that the motion gave “neither the trial court, opposing counsel, nor this court the specific grounds necessary to preserve this point for review.” Id. Pope, 179 S.W.3d at 455-56 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Allstate Indemnity Co.

3. “Aside from the rules regarding the asking of the “insurance question,” 9 it generally is improper to inject the -issue of liability insurance into an action for damages, and such an injection of insurance can constitute reversible error, particularly if done ... in bad faith. However, not every reference to insurance constitutes reversible error or requires the discharge of a jury. The trial judge is in a much better position than the appellate court to determine whether a reference to insurance was motivated by good or bad faith. The trial court also is better able to judge the effect on the jury. For these reasons, the decision of whether to grant a mistrial when such a situation arises is one that is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and only where a manifest abuse of discretion occurs will the appellate court disturb this decision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rider ex rel. Rider v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Greater Kansas City