Slabaugh v. Eldon Miller, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 1980
4 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
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 Smith v. Pine · Mann v. Des Moines Railway Co. · Burke v. Reiter · Wichita Falls S. R. Co. v. Tucker
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in view of the verdict, (for plaintiff) the ruling was without prejudice. "Had the counterclaim and cross-petition been submitted, the jury should have been instructed to give no consideration thereto in the event it found plaintiff entitled to recover, because such finding would include the finding that defendant was negligent, that his negligence was the proximate cause of the collision, and that decedent was free from contributory negligence. The verdict for plaintiff did necessarily include such findings which were fatal to any right of recovery on the counterclaim or cross petition. There is no possible theory on which both plaintiff and defendant were entitled to recover. We must conclude, therefore, that if the counterclaim and cross petition had been submitted, defendant could not have recovered thereon.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lauman v. Dearmin““The fourth error assigned is the failure of the trial court to ‘submit the statutory speed restrictions as one of the specifications of negligence on the part of the defendant for the reason that under the evidence the jury could reasonably find plaintiff’s truck was being driven in excess of the statutory speed on the Iowa highways.’ This point was raised by exceptions to instructions and in defendant’s motion for new trial. The scope of the complaint was somewhat broadened in the motion for new trial, where it was alleged that the question of the statutory speed limit was important upon the issue of plaintiffs’ contributory negligence. But, of course, defendant could not so ‘mend his hold’. His exceptions to instructions are the measure of his rights on this point.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Plummer v. Loonan
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.