Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 SW2D 691 - Beezley v. Spiva

Beezley v. Spiva’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
March 1994
most recently cited

37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably Robbins v. Robbins (1959), Schaefer v. Accardi (1958)

37 state decisions

23019581960197019801990decided

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 Cluck v. Abe · Ambrose v. M. F. A. Co-Operative Ass'n of St. Elizabeth · Evinger v. Thompson · Wilson Ex Rel. Wilson v. Shumate · Biscoe v. Kowalski

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

  1. ““In recognition, however, of the principle that the statute [requiring that motor vehicles be provided at all times with two sets of adequate brakes, kept in good working order] must be reasonably construed and applied, defendant could offer proof of legal excuse or avoidance of his failure to have observed the duty created by the statute, i. e., proof that an occurrence wholly without his fault made compliance with the statute impossible at the moment complained of and which proper care on his part would not have avoided. Upon adducing substantial evidence tending to so prove, it was then a jury question as to whether defendant was negligent for failure to have provided a foot brake in good working order.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The general rule is that where the proof of a party asserting the affirmative of a determinative issue is oral, such party is not entitled to a directed verdict although the opposing party offers no evidence, because the value and weight of the proponent’s evidence and the credibility of his witnesses is for determination by the jury.... ‘Ordinarily it is the function of the jury to pass upon all oral evidence, and in doing so it may find against a party on his uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence.’ (Citations omit- ■ ted.)”
    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.