Kleinlein v. Foskin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

48 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Capacity to labor (physically or mentally) includes the capacity to earn money, and more. Our law is that recovery may be had for an impairment of the capacity to labor, although there may be in fact no actual loss of earnings, and to be deprived of the power to work is a source of injury,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. Farmers Elevator Co. · Wolfe v. Kansas City

2. ““ * * * ‘This instruction, in effect, told the jury that the state highway commission “is authorized and has the right at law to condemn the strip of land in question, to be used as part of the public road in question, through the exceptors’ farm, and can take same in this proceeding without the consent and against the will of the exceptor; but you are further instructed that said plaintiff is required to pay therefor the fair and reasonable damages to these exceptors for taking their land for public use as a right of way for the road in question, and it is in your province to determine said damages, if any according to the law and rules as set out in other instructions in this case.” ’ “The complaint made against this instruction is that the part of the instruction which told the jury that plaintiff was ‘authorized and had a right to take defendants’ land without their consent and against their will’ is an abstract proposition of law and for that reason should not have been given. In each of the four cases cited by relator in an attempt to show conflict, the trial court refused to give an instruction containing an abstract proposition of law. IWe held in those cases that it was not error to refuse such an instruction, but we did not hold that it would be reversible error to give such an instruction. The doctrine of this court is that the giving of an abstract instruction will not constitute reversible error unless it appears that the complaining party has been prejudiced, or”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Williams

3. “Our courts, in several cases, have made a clear distinction between the diminution or impairment of the capacity to labor and the loss of earnings, and have held a recovery may be had for the diminution or impairment of the capacity to labor, although there may, in fact, be no actual loss of earnings,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Evans v. Farmers Elevator Co.