Kelly v. Benas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 86 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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The petition charges the intermarriage of plaintiffs; that their son, Michael, was the rise of nine years old on the 18th of' June, 1905; that defendants were the'owners, occupants and proprietors of certain premises on South Second Street in the city of St. Louis and the lumber and lumber yard thereon; that said premises opened on said street and on a public alley, were unfenced and unguarded, and that children in large numbers - played on the premises, all of •which defendants well knew; that such open lumber yard was an attraction for children to play on said premises at and about where the lumber was piled, as defendants well knew; that children in large numbers were attracted to play at and about the piles of lumber upon said premises and were endangered, if such lumber be negligently piled, all of which defendants well knew before Michael was killed; that defendants negligently piled lumber in their yard so loosey, insecurely and without any fastenings that said -lumber fell upon Michael and injured him so that he died; that on said date defendants had piled and -were maintaining a pile of lumber in said yard in such manner that- long pieces of lumber and timber were laid on top of shorter pieces, to a great height; that thereby said pile was made top-heavy and liable- to fall; that the pile was built -without braces or cleats to secure it from falling and was without fastenings of any kind to prevent its falling; that a pile so piled was dangerous to persons near the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ford Ex Rel. Ford v. Rock Hill Quarries Co.

2. ““We have-found no support for any rule which would protect those who go where they are not invited, but merely with express- or tacit permission, from curiosity or motives of private convenience, in no way connected with business or other relations with the occupant, , . . A person incurs no duty towards persons by not warning or driving them from his premises, and they.go there, if mere volunteers, and without invitation, at their own risk.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ford Ex Rel. Ford v. Rock Hill Quarries Co.