McElhaney v. Rouse’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 32 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The qualifications of an expert witness and the admissibility of his testimony are matters within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and unless the judge excludes the testimony he shall be deemed to have made the findings requisite to its admission.” (Syl. ¶ 2.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hildebrand v. Mueller · Hagood v. Hall

2. ““The elements of the doctrine as recognized in this jurisdiction have been announced in numerous decisions of this court. The most recent treatment of the subject was made in Letcher v. Derricott, 191 Kan. 596 , 383 P. 2d 533 , in which the elements as stated in Gibbs v. Mikesell, 183 Kan. 123 , 325 P. 2d 359 , were quoted as follows: “‘“The essential elements under the doctrine of last clear chance are: (1) The plaintiff by his own negligence placed himself in a position of danger; (2) that the plaintiff’s negligence had ceased; (3) that the defendant seeing the plaintiff in a position of danger, or by the exercise of due care should have seen the plaintiff in such position, by exercising due care on his part had a clear chance to avoid injuring the plaintiff; (4) that the defendant failed to exercise such due care; and (5) as a result of such failure on the defendant’s part plaintiff was injured. (Goodman v. Kansas City, M. & S. Rld. Co., 137 Kan. 508, 21 P. 2d 322 ; and see, Restatement of Law, Torts, Negligence, §479.)’’ (p. 130.)’” (1. c. 139.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wegley v. Funk

3. ““The usé of the phrase ‘that plaintiff’s negligence had ceased’ has caused some confusion. The phrase means, ,and perhaps the better term is, ‘that the plaintiff had, by her own negligence, placed herself in a position of peril from which she could not extricate herself.’ If the plaintiff could extricate herself from the danger, and did not do so, her negligence had not ceased. If the plaintiff could not extricate herself from the danger, her negligence had ceased.” (p. 600.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Simms v. Webb