Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 247 SW2D 792 - Curry v. Thompson

Curry v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
2
states following
March 2002
most recently cited

13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2002

13 state decisions

70195219601970198019902000decided

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 Cruce v. Gulf, Mobile & Ohio Railroad · Anshutz v. Louisville Railway Co. · Williams v. Illinois Central Railroad · Osburn v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. · Prince v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.

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

  1. ““ * * * In the instant case the questions made an issue by the evidence (and now pertinent) are as to the extent and severity of plaintiff’s injuries, i. e., whether such injuries are so permanent as to prevent plaintiff ever returning to his former railroad switching employment. Those issues were here litigated and there was expert opinion evidence upon every side of those issues. * * * But in our case here the permanency of plaintiff’s injuries, their extent and severity, and whether he could ever return to his former railroad switching employment were all issues of the evidence,””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““As a matter of public policy, courts generally look with disfavor upon after-trial facts which go no further than tending to establish that the bodily condition of a plaintiff in a personal injury action was not in fact as bad as may have been represented by [trial testimony]. And courts are, and should be, reluctant to order a new trial ... unless the after-trial facts ... are of such decisive and conclusive character as to render a different result reasonably certain.””
    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.