Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 352 Mo. 199 - Fenton v. Thompson

Fenton v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
4
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Stith v. St. Louis Public Service Co. (1952), Smithpeter v. Wabash Railroad (1950)

33 state decisions

12019431950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Baltimore & Carolina Line, Inc. v. Redman · North v. North · Stith v. J. J. Newberry Co. · Magee v. Mercantile-Commerce Bank & Trust Co. · Dahlberg v. Fisse

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

  1. “Appellant here complains of a final judgment of dismissal of a cause instituted against him. The judgment of dismissal, not being `with prejudice,' or on the merits, was necessarily `without prejudice.' While the judgment on its face appears to be in appellant's favor, yet if, under the circumstances shown by the record, the appellant was entitled, as a matter of law, to a judgment of dismissal `with prejudice' or on the merits, barring a further prosecution of the cause, and, if the judgment entered does not so provide, then error, in prejudice of appellant's substantial rights, has been committed against him, in that he did not receive all to which he was legally entitled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Respondent insists that ‘in our procedure the words “with prejudice” do not exist’ and that there is no decision of our courts defining the term. We think the term ‘with prejudice’ has a well-recognized legal import; ‘it is the converse of the term “without prejudice” and is as conclusive of the rights of the parties as if the suit had been prosecuted to a final adjudication adverse to the plaintiff.’ 45 Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, p. 455. See Long v. Long, 141 Mo. 352, 371 , 44 S.W. 341 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[I]f we assume a plaintiff has had his day in court with everything the law gave him, with no error in the record and no legal grounds for a new trial or for setting the submission aside, may he, after a voluntary submission of the cause to the jury, have another trial of the cause in a court of law before another jury merely because, for some reasons, he has reached the conclusion (after submission) that the verdict will be unfavorable on the merits or on the amount of damages?”
    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.