Miller v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 16 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Neither in theory nor in reality, notwithstanding a general denial, did defendant dispute these facts. This is shown by defendant’s answer and his interrogation of his witness by defendant’s counsel. The record shows that defendant tried the cause solely on the theory that plaintiff selected the timber from a mass of material. We think that the omitted requirements were not contested issues, but that the facts were’ conceded. Defendant cites the cases of Lackey v. United Railways, 288 Mo. 120 , 231 S. W. 956 ; Dunsmore v. Hartmann (Mo. Sup.), 256 S. W. 1031 ; and Cassin v. Lusk, 277 Mo. 663 , 210 S. W. 902 , to support his theory. In those cases the omitted essential requirements in the instructions involved contested issues. The instruction criticised did not constitute prejudicial error because of the omission, for defendant did not assume to try the cause on the theory that the omitted findings were in issue. Neal v. Caldwell (Mo. Sup.), 34 S. W. (2d) 104 , loc. cit. 112.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Williamson v. Wabash Railroad Co.

2. “‘It is unnecessary to determine specifically that the insurer is a co-debtor, or a guarantor, or in any manner a surety for the assured, but it is clear that the insurer falls within one of these classifications. However, we are inclined to the view that the status of a liability insurer against loss is that of a guarantor, guaranteeing to pay in the event of liability determined and predicated on a judgment. . . . Consequently, the liability of the Globe Indemnity Company is not altered by the discharge of the bankrupt. “Having been discharged in bankruptcy, it is clear that defendant cannot be made to pay the judgment. This does not prevent this court, however, from affirming the judgment against defendant, with a perpetual stay of execution, so as to leave-the .plaintiff at liberty to proceed against the Globe Indemnity Company. . . .” (p. 319.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Bondurant

3. ““The discharge in bankruptcy of the defendant, against whom judgment for damages was rendered in the circuit court and who appealed to this court from the judgment, who, after said appeal was perfected, filed his petition in the Federal court and was adjudged a bankrupt, and was discharged from all debts and claims existing or provable on the date his petition was filed, excepting such debts as are by law excepted from the operation of a discharge in bankruptcy, and who scheduled said judgment as a liability against him, did not discharge an insurance company which had by its indemnity bond obligated itself to pay said judgment.” (syl. 2.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Bondurant