Jones v. Eppler’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 34 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In an action for damages for personal injuries sustained, the court will not set a judgment aside because of excessive damages, unless the amount awarded clearly shows that the jury was actuated by passion, partiality, or prejudice.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dunn v. Southall · Walton v. Bennett

2. “"A tort Liability of an individual, partnership or corporation is an indebtedness which may be enforced against a corporation which takes over the business and assets of its predecessor under the circumstances outlined above, as the assumption of the liabilities of a predecessor includes tort liabilities."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clardy v. Sanders · 40 Ill. App. 2d 117 - Plaza Express Co. v. Middle States Motor Freight, Inc.

3. ““The undisputed evidence in this case is that the trucking company was employed to move two heavy drilling motors from another location to the location where plaintiff was working at the time of his injuries, and that the truck hauling the motors in going to the well site would be off the highway, which was incidental to the transportation of the motors, and we believe that under these circumstances, the rule announced in the McMahan case, supra [McMahan v. McCafferty, 205 Okl. 656 , 240 P.2d 443 ], applies. There in the body of the opinion, we said: “‘(1) The defendants, in Proposition One, contend that the court erred in overruling their motions to dismiss on the theory that the defendant, Mc-Mahan, at the time of the alleged injury was not operating as a Class "B" motor carrier, pursuant to the pro visions of 47 O.S.1941, Sections 161 to 169, in that he was not using the public road or highway. This contention is without merit. The Tenth Circuit Court, in the case of Commercial Standard Insurance Co. v. Bacon, (10 Cir.) 154 F.2d 360, 363 , in passing upon a similar situation says: “ * * * It is not necessary, however, that the vehicle must be in actual operation or use upon the highway at the time the loss occurs in order to constitute' an operation or use of the highway. It is sufficient if the operation or use of the vehicle from which the loss occurs has a proximate and necessary connection with an actual operation of use of the vehicle upon the highway.” ’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Casualty Reciprocal Exchange v. Waggoner Drilling Co.