Campbell v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““J. J. Johnson sued E. V. Campbell for damages for injuries to his automobile, caused by collision with a car belonging to appellant. “The collision occurred at the intersection of Abbott street and Mockingbird Lane in the city of Dallas, and, at the time, appellant’s car was driven by his wife; appellee was driving his own car. “Appellee alleged, in substance, that the collision occurred on account of the negligence of the wife of appellant. Appellant’s defense was, the general issue and contributory negligence on the part of appellee. “The jury found in response to special issues that the wife of appellant was guilty of negligence, proximately causing the injury, and that the difference in the cash market value of the automobile immediately before and immediately after the injury was $1,873.05; also that the reasonable cash value of the cost of the material and labor necessary to replace the ■damaged parts was $1,873.05. “The jury also found that appellee on the occasion was guilty of contributory negligence, but that such negligence was not the proximate cause of the collision. “On these findings the court rendered judgment in favor of appellee for the sum of $1,-873.05, from which this appeal is prosecuted." “The findings of the jury in response to special issues as above stated were, in our opinion, authorized by the evidence and are adopted a& our conclusions of fact.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Campbell v. Johnson

2. ““Under the provisions of article 4613 (4621) (2967) (2851), Rev.St.1925, the separate property of the husband cannot be subjected to the payment of damages occasioned by the torts of the wife. Notwithstanding the provision, his common-law liability for her torts remains undisturbed by any statute. It follows therefore that this liability may be enforced by a suit against him without the necessity of joining the wife, and their common estate may be subjected to the payment of any judgment obtained against him.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark, NJ v. Burch

3. “Appellant, by appropriate assignment and propositions, contends that the court erred in submitting special issue No. 6 wherein the jury was instructed to find the difference, if any, between the cash market value of the automobile immediately before and immediately after the collision, on the ground that there was no allegation as to the market value of the automobile before and after the collision.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wilson v. Metcalf