Anthony v. Morrow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 20 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The applicable rules of law were well stated by this court in Riley v. Young, Mo.App., 218 S.W.2d 805 , loc. cit. 808, as follows: ‘There is no doubt of the duty of the operator of a motor vehicle to keep a careful or vigilant watch ahead for other persons or vehicles on the highway; and for a motorist to fulfill this duty he must look in such an observant manner as to enable him to see and discover such conditions as one in the exercise of the highest degree of care for the safety of himself and others would be expected to see under like or similar circumstances. Kaley v. Huntley, 333 Mo. 771 , 63 S.W.2d 21 ; Brown v. Toedebush Transfer, 354 Mo. 611 , 190 S.W.2d 239 ; Wright v. Osborn, 356 Mo. 382 , 201 S.W.2d 935 ; Rohmann v. City of Richmond Heights, Mo.App., 135 S.W.2d 378 . Such duty, being fixed, uniform, and continuous, is in that sense constant ; and if a motorist, having the duty to look, fails to see what is plainly visible, he is guilty of negligence and liable for its consequences. Wright v. Osborn, supra; Rohmann v. City of Richmond Heights, supra. ’””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bates v. Hensley

2. ““In reaching the above decision, and in taking jurisdiction of the appeal from that portion of the judgment in plaintiff’s favor, we have not overlooked the general rule that a party may not appeal from a part of a judgment. Gloria Lee Realty Co. v. Madigan, Mo.App., 243 S.W.2d 118 ; Biederman Furniture Co. v. Isbell, Mo. App., 102 S.W.2d 746 . An apparent exception to this rule is recognized whereby an appeal will lie from a part of a judgment where that part is the result of the trial of issues distinct, entire, and severable from the other issues tried. Beckmann v. Beckmann, 358 Mo. 1029 , 218 S.W.2d 566 , 9 A.L.R.2d 428 . Such is the situation in the case at bar. Plaintiff’s claim and appellant’s cross claim are separate and distinct causes of action, and appellant should be allowed to appeal from either the entire judgment or that part thereof which disposes of his cross claim.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rudy-Fick, Inc. v. Snider