Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 Mich. 15 - King v. Neller

King v. Neller’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
May 1987
most recently cited

7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently May 1987

7 state decisions

301924193019401950196019701980decided

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 Montgomery v. Lansing City Electric Railway Co. · 110 Mo. App. 391 - Ballard v. Kansas City · Johnson v. McKee · Fishleigh v. Detroit United Railway · Berger v. Jacobs

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

  1. ““The words ‘in all probability’ are criticized, and it is said that only such future damages can be recovered as the evidence makes reasonably certain will necessarily result from the injury sustained, that there must be reasonable certainty of future consequences of the injury as distinguished from reasonable probability; citing, Matthews v. Lamberton, 184 Mich. 493 ; Brininstool v. Railways Co., 157 Mich. 172 ; Kethledge v. City of Petoskey, 179 Mich. 301 . ‘In all probability’ means more than reasonable probability. It is equivalent to reasonable certainty. It describes the highest degree of probability. It has practically the same meaning as ‘in all likelihood,’ which has been held equivalent to reasonable certainty. Ballard v. Kansas City, 110 Mo. App. 391 ( 86 S. W. 479 ); 31 C. J. p. 363; 2 Words and Phrases (2d Series), 984.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “‘‘ If you believe from the evidence in the case that in all probability she (plaintiff) will in the future suffer pain, you may award her the present worth of such amount as will fairly and justly compensate her for this future pain and suffering.””
    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.