Mikell v. La Beth’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 25 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. “ANSWER: ‘Yes.’ “If you have answered Issue No. 1 ‘Yes’ and only in that event, then answer Issue No. 2. “ISSUE NO. 2: Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that such negligence was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question? “Answer ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. “ANSWER: ‘Yes.’ “ISSUE NO. 3: What sum of money, if any, if paid now in cash, do you find from a preponderance of the evidence would fairly and reasonably compensate Charles Curtis Leva for his injuries which you find from a preponderance of the evidence resulted from the occurrence in question? “Answer separately in dollars and cents with respect to each of the following elements: “(a) Physical pain and mental anguish in the past. ANSWER: ‘$25.000.00’ “(b) Physical pain and mental anguish which, in reasonable probability, he will suffer in the future. ANSWER: ‘$12.500.00’ “(c) Loss of earnings in the past, since he last worked for Texas Farm Products Company. ANSWER: ‘$1.500.00’ “(d) Loss of earning capacity which, in reasonable probability, he will sustain in the future. ANSWER: ‘$22.500.00’ “(e) Physical and cosmetic impairment in the past. ANSWER: ‘$10.000.00’ “(f) Physical and cosmetic impairment which, in reasonable probability, he will suffer in the future. ANSWER: ‘$20.000,00’ “You are instructed that in answering Issue No. 3 to consider each element of damage separately so as not to include damages for one element in any other element.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Joe Rone Grain Co. v. McFarland · Texas Farm Products Co. v. Leva

2. ““Physical impairment and diminished capacity to work and earn money do not necessarily imply one and the same thing. Diminished capacity to work and earn money may and ordinarily does result from physical impairment, but physical impairment does not necessarily result in diminished capacity to work and earn money. It depends on the nature of the impairment and the nature of the work. . . Physical impairment, as well as the result, diminished capacity to work and earn money, were both proper elements of damage. The physical impairment with its accompanying pain and suffering was a scar on the forehead and at least a temporarily swollen knee. Norman was entitled to recover for these injuries even had there been no diminution of his earning capacity because of them. Houston Transit Company v. Felder, 146 Tex. 428 , 208 S.W.2d 880 ; 13 Tex.Jur. p. 170, Sec. 79.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gonzales v. Gilliam

3. ““In the instant case there is evidence which would support a finding that ap-pellee suffered a ruptured disc in the cervical spine . . . resulting from the injury. This constituted a physical impairment which did not necessarily affect appellee’s capacity to labor and earn money. We think there was no necessary duplication of elements of damage in the issue.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gonzales v. Gilliam