Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 214 MO 98 - Flowers v. Smith

Flowers v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1908

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
March 1968
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1968

14 state decisions

1101908191019201930194019501960decided

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 Callahan v. Ingram · Mooney v. Kennett · Christal v. Craig · Brownell v. Pacific Railroad · Birch v. Benton

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““On principle it must obtain that where the several causes of action are united in one count, and the case is tried on all, and a single verdict and assessment of damages in favor of the plaintiff, if one or more of the causes of action assigned be bad, so as not to support the verdict, the verdict must be bad as to all. How is it possible for the court to tell whether the jury took one or all the alleged slanderous words into their estimation? How much proof of the imperfect cause and how much of the good, did the jury consider? Was it the fact proveji touching the bad count that influenced the verdict, and if so, to what extent?””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.