Anderson v. Glascock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. ““It shall be unlawful for the owner of any animal or animals of the species of horse, mule, ass, cattle, swine, sheep or goat, in this state to permit the same to run at large outside the enclosure of the owner of such stock, and if any of the species of domestic animals aforesaid be found running at large, outside the enclosure of the owner, * * * (the owner) shall ‘also pay all persons damaged by reason of such animals running at large, the actual damages sustained by him or them; provided, that said owner shall not be responsible for any accident on a public road or highway if he establishes the fact that the said animal or animals were outside the enclosure through no fault or negligence of the owner, i * *»”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keefer v. Hartzler · Beshore v. Gretzinger

2. ““The Court instructs the jury that if you find and believe from the evidence that on or about the 19th day of August, 1959, Stella Ann Keefer, was driving an automobile in an easterly direction on Highway No. 2 in Cass County, Missouri and that at the time and place mentioned in evidence plaintiff’s automobile collided with a hog on Highway No. 2, and if you further find and believe from the evidence that on said date the provisions described and known in the evidence as the Missouri Stock Law was in full force and effect' in Cass County, Missouri; if you so find, and if you further find that the hog with which Plaintiff’s automobile collided was the property of or in possession of the defendant, if you so find, then you are further instructed that by the provisions known as the Missouri Stock Law is meant that provision of the Missouri .Stock Law that required swine, among other animals, ‘be restrained in an. enclosure of the owner “or possessor and not permitted to run at large and onto the Highway in question, and that one violating the Missouri Stock Law ‘shall also pay all persons damaged by reason of such animals running at large, the actual damage sustained by her or them,’ unless you find that said hog was outside the enclosure through no fault or negligence of the owner or possessor. You are further instructed that you are entitled to infer negligence on the part of the defendant from the fact that the hog was on the highway at the time of the collision mentioned in ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keefer v. Hartzler

3. ““The Court instructs the jury that under the law, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover from the defendants merely because the defendants’ livestock escaped from the defendants’' enclosure and got upon a public highway and thereby caused damage to the plaintiff’s automobile. If the defendants, by the greater weight of the-credible evidence in the case, prove-that such livestock were present on, the highway without any fault or negligence on the part of the defendants,, then there is no liability placed upon them, but the burden of so proving, rests upon the defendants. The jury are entitled to infer negligence on the part of the defendants from the mere-fact of the escape of the animals and the subsequent happening of the accident, but any such inference is not conclusive. That is, it must be weighed and balanced by you against any evidence offered by the defendants to show that they, the defendants, were-not guilty of any fault or negligence and if, after so weighing and balancing the evidence, you find from the greater weight of the credible evidence-in the case, that the cattle in question-escaped without any fault or negligence on the part of the defendants,, then you must return a verdict for the defendants on the plaintiff’s cause of action.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. King v. Furry