Drake v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently October 1993 · most notably Kleibrink v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co. (1978), State v. Toney (1993)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 52 state decisions
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 Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad · Sponable v. Thomas · Eldredge v. Sargent · Goodloe v. Jo-Mar Dairies Co. · Meneley v. Montgomery
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The rear end of the trailer was a dull, drab and dirty color, making it difficult to be seen at night. . . .” (p. 314.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. In testing the sufficiency of evidence as against a demurrer, the evidence and the inferences that may be properly drawn therefrom must be considered in the light most favorable to the party against whom the demurrer is directed; and if the evidence and the inferences viewed in that manner are of such character that reasonable minds, in the exercise of fair and impartial judgment, may reach different conclusions thereon, the demurrer should be overruled and the issue submitted to a jury. “2. Contributory negligence is generally an affirmative defense. It is never presumed. It must be established by proof.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Swinney v. Ward · Hoff v. Johnston““. . .A great deal of room must be left to the discretion of the trial court in determining admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae. (State v. McCrady, supra, p. 568; 2 Kan. L. Rev., 41, 248; 53 A. L. R. 2d Anno., § 5, pp. 1260, 1261.) The record discloses there was a full and complete argument before the trial court on the question of the admissibility of the evidence, and the court ruled adverse to defendants. We cannot say the court erred or abused its discretion.” (Drake v. Moore, 184 Kan. 309, 336 P. 2d 807, p. 318 ; see, also, State v. McCrady, 152 Kan. 566 , 106 P. 2d 696 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Letcher v. Derricott
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.