Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 319 Mo. 401 - Kennedy v. Bowling

Kennedy v. Bowling’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
3
states following
March 1994
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently March 1994

19 state decisions

8019281930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton · Busch & Latta Painting Co. v. Woermann Construction Co. · Black River Lumber Co. v. Warner · Wilson Company v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co. · Valley Spring Hog Ranch Co. v. Plagmann

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

  1. ““According to plaintiffs’ evidence, defendants accepted the statements of plaintiff Kennedy that he knew nothing about the requirement for a building having the strength he desired, and defendants gave their assurance as experienced builders that the suggested and offered plans were sufficient for the purpose, and plaintiff acted upon that assurance. The evidence was competent, and the question whether defendants undertook to construct the building for a known purpose, a building which would sustain the designated weight, was one for the jury. If they represented themselves as experienced and skillful in the construction of buildings and in the designs for such buildings, and the plaintiffs relied upon their judgment, and defendants undertook the construction of the building, then the implied warranty arose that in design and workmanship the building should be reasonably fit for the purpose designated. Busch & Latta Paint Co. v. Woermann Construction Co., supra [ 310 Mo. 419 , 276 S.W. 614 ]; Smith v. Clark, 58 Mo. 145 ; Kellogg Bridge Co. v. Hamilton, 110 U.S. 108 , 3 S.Ct. 537 , 28 L.Ed. 86 ; United States Wind, Engine & Pump Co. v. Manufacturers’ Automatic Sprinkler Co., 84 Mo.App. 204 .” 6”
    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.