Olson v. Hodges’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““It has been the uniform rule of this court that a general order of reversal in a law action cancels the district court judgment and sends the case back for -a full retrial of the entire case, even though the reversing opinion was based upon the insufficiency of plaintiff’s evidence. * * * Before the adoption of the new Rules of Civil Procedure, and under section 12871 of the 1924 and subsequent Codes, we have ordered judgment where it clearly appeared that each party had fully presented his case, and that the record on a retrial would very likely not be different. * * * “But Rule 349 of the new Rules provides that when a judgment is reversed for error in overruling a motion to direct a verdict, and the granting of the motion would have terminated the case in favor of appellant, this court may enter, or direct the trial court to enter final judgment as if the motion had been initially sustained; provided that, if it appears from the record that the material facts relating thereto were not fully developed at the trial, or if, in the opinion of this court, the ends of justice will be served thereby, a new trial shall be awarded of such issue or of the whole case.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. M-Z Entersprises, Inc. v. Hawkeye-Security Insurance Co. · Johnson v. Scott

2. ““ ‘The statute calls imperatively upon us to recognize a substantial distinction between negligence and Reckless operation. * * * Having laid down in the Siesseger case [ 213 Iowa 164 , 239 N.W. 46 ] the line of demarcation to the best of our ability, our remaining duty for the future is to apply the rule without vacillation to the concrete facts of the particular case. Such has been our course in the cases here above cited. The two grounds upon which recovery may be predicated under section 5026-bl [section 5037.10,1939 Code] are exceptional and not general. The general rule is that a guest cannot recover. The exceptional grounds are: (1) “intoxication” of the driver, (2) “reckless operation” by the driver. The exceptional character of these grounds implies an infrequency of application thereof. To use and apply the exceptions as the general rule, and in effect to supplant the general rule with the constant use of the exceptions, is to drive against a red light. If the application of the exceptions becomes more frequent than that of the general rule, it may well be deemed a warning sign that we are misapplying the exceptions.’ ” Shenkle v. Mains, supra.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goodman v. Gonse · Schneider ex rel. Schneider v. Parish

3. ““An important factor in determining whether there was reckless operation of a motor vehicle is the fact that the driver either knew and appreciated the existing dangers, or the conditions and circumstances were such or were so obvious that he should have known and been conscious of the dangers. Proof of either is sufficient. It is the heedless disregard of these known or apparent dangers that constitutes recklessness. Appellant knew of the road conditions but it cannot be said, under the record, that he was utterly heedless of or indifferent to them.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kauzlarich v. Fitzwater