Schide v. Gottschick’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Holmes v. Terminal RR Ass'n of St. Louis (1953), Stanich v. Western Union Telegraph Co. (1941)
4 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
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 Gannon v. Laclede Gas Light Co. · Jablonowski v. Modern Cap Manufacturing Co. · Benjamin v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. · Smart v. Kansas City · Snyder v. Wagner Electric Manufacturing Co.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is too general to constitute a direct guide for the jury and amounts to what is commonly termed a roving commission. It fails to advise the jury, or point out in any way, what acts or omissions on the part of plaintiff, if any, found by them from the evidence, would constitute contributory negligence. It permitted them to base a finding for defendant `on any theory of negligence which they could construct or evolve out of their own minds, and was therefore erroneous.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“be considered as a good plea of general contributory negligence, respondents were not thereby relieved of the requirement that their instruction, directing a finding in their favor upon that issue, specify the acts or omissions, appearing in the evidence and which, under the law, would constitute negligence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clason v. Lenz“was careless or negligent, and that such negligence or carelessness of the plaintiff directly contributed to the injury which she sustained, the plaintiff cannot recover damages in this case even though the defendants were negligent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clason v. Lenz
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.