Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 440 SW2D 940 - Helfrick v. Taylor

Helfrick v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
January 2015
most recently cited

25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably Rakestraw v. Norris (1972), Zipp v. Gasen's Drug Stores, Inc. (1970)

25 state decisions

200196919701980199020002010decided

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 Cluck v. Abe · Reich v. Thompson · State v. Ferguson · Schaefer v. Accardi · Kiger v. Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

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

  1. “MAI 32.01 Helfrick Shackman “Your verdict must be for the defendant . if you believe: “Your verdict must be for the defendants if you believe: “Your verdict must be for the defendant . if you believe: First, plaintiff either: failed to keep a careful lookout, or drove at an excessive speed, or First, plaintiff Patricia Helfrick, failed to keep a careful lookout; First, plaintiff failed to look and observe where she was walking and stepping, and drove on the wrong side of the road; and Second, plaintiff’s conduct, in any one or more of the respects submitted in Paragraph First, was negligent; and Second, plaintiff’s conduct, as submitted in paragraph First, was negligent; and Second, plaintiff was thereby negligent, and Third, ...” Third, . Third, .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “The general rule is that where the proof of a party asserting the affirmative of a determinative issue is oral, such party is not entitled to a directed verdict although the opposing party offers no evidence, because the value and weight of the proponent’s evidence and the credibility of his witnesses is for determination by the jury.... ‘Ordinarily it is the function of the jury to pass upon all oral evidence, and in doing so it may find against a party on his uncontradicted and unimpeached evidence.’ (Citations omit- ■ ted.)”
    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.