Rush Implement Co. v. Vaughn’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2019
8 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 City of Kingfisher v. Jenkins · National Biscuit Co. v. Lout · Oklahoma Leader Co. v. Wells · Choctaw County v. Bateman · Shell Oil Co., Inc. v. Thomas
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Both parties introduced competent expert testimony in support of their divergent theories. The trial tribunal resolved the disputed issue adversely to the employer * * * It is neither the duty nor the province of this Court to weigh the evidence in order to ascertain where the preponderance lies.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“where the injury results through some accidental means, was unexpected and undesigned, or may be the result of mere mischance or of miscalculation as to the effect of voluntary action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We have repeatedly held that a physician does not have to give testimony categorically, but that the general tenor and intent of such testimony is the controlling consideration.””
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.