Ketcham v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 51 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Defendant Connell, plaintiff’s host, asserts error resulting from the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction authorizing the finding that the negligence of defendant Thomas was the sole cause of plaintiff’s injury. To be entitled to such an instruction, a defendant must present a statement of facts, supported by the evidence, which if found by the jury would authorize findings absolving him of fault and that the plaintiff, a third person, or another defendant was at fault. Borgstede v. Waldbauer, 337 Mo. 1205 , 88 S.W.2d 373 ; Semar v. Kelly, 352 Mo. 157 , 176 S.W.2d 289 ; Long v. Mild, 347 Mo. 1002 , 149 S.W.2d 853 . We look to the evidence, and the reasonable inferences favorable to defendant Connell, to determine if there was sufficient proof to warrant the giving of a sole cause instruction in his behalf. Hopkins v. Highland Dairy Farms Co., 348 Mo. 1158 , 159 S.W.2d 254 . * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wiseman v. Jackson

2. “An expert’s view of possibility or probability is often helpful and proper. * * * Where there are other facts which tend to show an accident caused a certain condition, the assurance of an expert that it is scientifically possible is of some aid to the jury in determining what are reasonable inferences to be drawn from such facts. (Quoted in Ketcham v. Thomas, Mo., 283 S.W.2d 642, 649 , from Kimmie v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis, 334 Mo. 596 , 66 S.W.2d 561, 565 .)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kummer v. Cruz

3. ““ * * * ‘In the absence of visible lack of caution of the driver or known imminence of danger, a guest may ordinarily rely upon a driver who has exclusive control of the vehicle’, Toburen v. Carter, supra, 273 S.W.2d 161 at page 164, and it is a matter of common knowledge that under ordinary circumstances such occupants do largely rely upon the driver, who has the exclusive control and management of the vehicle, and who is exercising the required degree of care.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heifner v. Sparks