Wilson v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Erwin & Shafer, Inc. v. Pabst Brewing Co. (1985), Nunnery v. State (2011)
33 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 City of St. Louis v. Butler Co. · State Ex Rel. Leggett v. Jensen · State v. Brookshire · Ingle v. City of Fulton · In Re St. Joseph Lead Company
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. The director, having good cause to believe that an operator is incompetent or unqualified to retain his or her license ... may require the person to submit to an examination as prescribed by the director. [[Image here]] 3. The director shall have good cause to believe that an operator is incompetent or unqualified to retain such person’s license on the basis of, but not limited to, a report by: (1) Any certified peace officer; (2) Any physician ... licensed pursuant to chapter 334, RSMo[.] [[Image here]] The report must state that the person reasonably and in good faith believes the driver cannot safely operate a motor vehicle and must be based upon personal observation or physical evidence which shall be described in the report, or the report shall be based upon an investigation by a law enforcement officer. The report shall be a written declaration in the form prescribed by the department of revenue and shall contain the name, address, telephone number, and signature of the person making the report.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Her examination and the certificate of a physician (of her own choice) would have constituted a hearing in a limited sense; and we shall not say that she might not have been entitled to introduce, or at least offer, at that hearing other evidence in support of her competency and ability to drive. In such event her present insistence upon a “trial de novo” or evidentiary hearing in the Circuit Court would be of more substance. In fact, she not only defaulted, when offered the opportunity to appear, but actually refused to obey an order which was at least lawful on its face.... Plaintiff having elected so to act, we hold that the only issue remaining when the matter reached the Circuit Court was the existence of “good came" for ordering her to appear and take the examination.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the event that an application for license is denied or withheld, or in the event that a license is suspended or revoked by the director, the applicant or licensee so aggrieved may appeal to the circuit court of the county of his residence ... for the review of administrative decisions at any time within thirty days after notice that a license is denied or withheld or that a license is suspended or revoked. Upon such appeal the cause shall be heard de novo and the circuit court may order the director to grant such license, sustain the suspension, or revocation by the director, set aside or modify the same, or revoke such license.”
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.