Krause v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 25 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is also suggested that plaintiff and defendant were engaged in a joint adventure, and that his negligence was imputable to her. The relation of joint adventurers is generally contractual in its nature. . . . “It is plain that plaintiff and defendant were not joint adventurers in the sense that the negligence of one will be imputed to the other.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Schweidler v. Caruso · Edlebeck v. Hooten

2. ““It is well settled that a guest in an automobile must give some heed to his or her own safety and that ordinary care requires that he or she should maintain a proper lookout. . . . What constitutes a proper lookout depends upon circumstances. While the circumstances may be so clear that a failure to keep a proper lookout may be declared as a matter of law, it is generally a jury question. ... A guest is not held to the same degree of care in this respect that is required of the driver, and one sitting in the back seat is held to a less degree of care than one sitting in the front seat. Just as circumstances may arise which will excuse one from looking before crossing a railroad track, as in Shaver v. Davis, 175 Wis. 592 , 185 N. W. 227 , and Gundlach v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 172 Wis. 438 , 179 N. W. 577, 985 , so may circumstances excuse a guest or passenger in an automobile from maintaining a more faithful lookout.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tomberlin v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co.