Weber v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““. . . [T]he question of capacity of a particular child at a particular time in avoiding a particular danger is one of fact, falling within the province of a jury to determine. . . .” (Weber v. Wilson, 187 Kan. 214, 220 , 356 P.2d 659 [1960].)”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Honeycutt Ex Rel. Phillips v. City of Wichita · Hanks v. Booth

2. “The rule of law with respect to the negligence of an adult and that of a child of tender years is quite different. Children of tender years are not held to the same strict accountability of an appreciation of danger and of need for care of themselves as persons of full age, but are required to exercise such care as persons of their age, experience, capacity and intelligence are ordinarily expected to exercise under like circumstances . . . the question of capacity of a particular child at a particular time in avoiding a particular danger is one of fact, falling within the province of a jury to determine. . 356 P.2d at 663-664 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Burgert v. Tietjens · Riley v. Holcomb

3. ““In ruling on a motion for directed verdict pursuant to K.S.A. 60-250 the court is required to resolve all facts and inferences reasonably to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the party against whom the ruling is sought, and where the evidence is such that reasonable minds could reach different conclusions thereon, the motion must be denied and the matter submitted to the jury. The same basic rule governs appellate review of a motion for directed verdict. [Citations omitted.] The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed, but whether there is evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for that party. Even where facts are undisputed it is possible that conflicting inferences may be drawn from those facts, and where that is true, the issue must be submitted to the jury. [Citation omitted.] Where no evidence is presented on a particular issue, or the evidence presented is undisputed and it is such that the minds of reasonable persons may not draw differing inferences and arrive at opposing conclusions with reason and justice, the matter becomes a question of law for the court’s determination. [Citations omitted.]””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hanks v. Booth