Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 314 Mo. 13 - State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Daues

State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Daues’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
3
states following
June 2006
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably McComb v. Vaughn (1949), Southern Natural Gas Co. v. Davidson (1932)

3 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

100192619301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Cain v. Garvey · Harriman v. Stowe · Hennessy v. Bavarian Brewing Co. · Brownell v. Pacific Railroad · White v. Maxcy

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

  1. ““The proposition now is what to do with the opinion. If a court of appeals follows our last ruling we will not quash its opinion, although we conclude that our own is wrong. This because such court has obeyed the constitutional mandate by following our last previous rulings. But that is not the situation here. The Court of Appeals refused'to follow our last expressions on the vital question, and we have concluded that they were right in so doing. If we quash their opinion for the refusal to follow the latest expressions of our court, then the case is left there for a rehearing, and upon this rehearing this opinion will be our latest ruling, and they would be obligated to follow it under the Constitution. In following it, such court would have to rewrite just what it has now written. The law does not contemplate a useless act, so concluding as we have, that our cases (latest cases) are wrong upon the vital question, the proper thing for this court is to so say, as we have said, and sustain the opinion already written, which we now approve.” [State ex rel. Thomas v. Daues, 314 Mo. l. c. 32-33, 283 S. W. 51 ]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The gist and foundation of the right in all cases is the wrongful act, and that for such wrongful act but one recovery should be had, and that if the deceased had received satisfaction in his lifetime, either by settlement and adjustment or by adjudication in the courts no further right of action existed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “could not be a party to a suit to recover a penalty for (his) own death,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.