Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 SW2D 892 - Bowyer v. Te-Co., Inc.

Bowyer v. Te-Co., Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
February 1988
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 1988 · most notably Shepard v. Harris (1959), Spencer v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co. (1960)

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

1701958196019701980decided

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 Dempsey v. Thompson · Ilgenfritz v. Missouri Power & Light Co. · Sanders v. Illinois Central Railroad Company · Hudson v. Kansas City Baseball Club, Inc. · Redmon v. Metropolitan Street Railway

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

  1. “"“Was there substantial evidence- from which the jury reasonably could find that the second fracture was the natural and probable consequence of the negligence of defendant which produced the first fracture?” We hold that there was not such evidence here. The defendant can only be liable for such consequences as are the direct and proximate result of her negligence ; there was insufficient evidence here to make a jury issue on the question of causation with reference to the fall of March 1958 and its effects. To that extent there is no evidence to support the verdict. Plaintiff’s condition after the second injury was considerably more serious than it was after the first. It is obvious that the jury considered the results of both; its verdict was in the sum of $45,000, which so shocked the trial court that a remittitur of $22,500 was ordered. It is impossible for us to say now how much of the remaining $22,500 should be attributed to the first injury and how much to the second. The only alternative is a retrial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.