Kelso v. Kelso’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Herbert v. Harl (1988), Giokaris v. Kincaid (1960)
3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
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 St Louis Dressed Beef Provision Company v. Maryland Casualty Company · Wendorff v. Missouri State Life Insurance · State Ex Rel. Connecticut Fire Insurance v. Cox · Butler Bros. v. American Fidelity Co. · United States Guarantee Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. In the event of a sale or transfer of ownership of a’ motor vehicle or trailer for which a certificate of ownership has been issued the holder of such certificate shall indorse on the same an assignment thereof, with warranty of title in form printed thereon, and prescribed by the director of revenue, . . . and deliver the same to the buyer at the time of the delivery to him of said motor vehicle or trailer. 4. It shall be unlawful for any person to buy or sell in this state any motor vehicle or trailer registered under the laws of this state, unless at the time of the delivery thereof, there shall pass between the parties such certificate of ownership with an assignment thereof, as herein provided, and the sale of any motor vehicle or trailer registered under the laws of this state, without the assignment of such cer- tifieate of ownership, shall be fraudulent and void. 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. The Endorsement No. 4 shows upon its face that Rankin, the insured, was the lessee of the entire premises of the Maryville Municipal Airport and that he conducted thereon the business of “Airport Operation — Sales and Services”. 2. Coverage K afforded Rankin coverage of $100,000.00 for property damage liability for which he might become legally obligated to pay as damages “because of injury to or destruction of property”. 3. Under “Definition of Hazards, Division No. 1, Premises”, is the clear and unambiguous declaration that accidents “happening” on insured’s premises as described “in Item 2b”, i. e. entire Maryville Municipal Airport, “resulting or arising from the ownership, maintenance or use of the above described premises or the named Insured’s business operations thereon.’’ are covered by the insurance. 4. Under the terms of Rankin’s lease with the City of Maryville, of which the insured was cognizant at the time of the issuance of the endorsement, Rankin was in complete charge of all airport operations, as more fully set forth in our statement of facts, supra, including aircraft services and the control of aircraft operation and air traffic in and out of the airport. We recognize the possible exception of the National Guard hangar as emphasized by appellant, but even as to it, Rankin had access to and permission to use the hangar. 5. Under the terms of his agreements, the nature of his functions and obligations, and his actual day-to-day operations, Rankin either o”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““6. Action Against Company — Part 1. No action shall lie against the company unless, as a condition precedent thereto, the insured shall have fully complied with all the terms of this policy, nor until the amount of the insured’s obligation to pay shall have been finally determined either by judgment against the insured after actual trial or by written agree ment of the insured, the claimant and the company.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smithers v. Mettert
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.