Rakestraw v. Norris’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““* * * we realize that it is not an M.A.I. requirement that a definition of the word negligence be given whenever that term appears in the instructions, Brewer v. Swift & Company, Mo., 451 S.W.2d 131, 134 , and perhaps if plaintiff had submitted her case solely upon a violation of the traffic signal, such definition would have been unnecessary. However, there is no specific statutory duty to maintain a careful lookout in this state, except as that duty inheres in the requirement that ‘[e]very person operating a motor vehicle on the highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner . . and shall exercise the highest degree of care.’ § 304.-010, par. 1. ‘Keeping a careful lookout’ does not in itself denote the exercise of a specific standard of care; it is a term of variable meaning, depending upon the context in which it is used. In this particular case, the defendant was required to exercise the highest degree of care in the maintenance of a lookout to discover the presence of other persons and objects on the streets and to become aware of dangerous situations and conditions there existing, Miller v. St. Louis Public Service Company, supra, 389 S.W.2d 771 [2], but the jury was given no standard by which to measure his duty because the terms ‘negligent’ and ‘negligence’ were not defined. As stated, because of the broad generality of the lookout submission, it is our opinion that the terms ‘negligent’ and ‘negligence’ should have been defined, and t”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Terrell v. Bailey Limestone Co.

2. ““Your verdict must be for plaintiff Mae Hill if you believe: First, defendant either: failed to keep a careful lookout, or drove at an excessive speed, or defendant knew or by the use of the highest degree of care could have known that there was a reasonable likelihood of collision in time thereafter to have slackened his speed but defendant failed to do so, and Second, defendant’s conduct, in any one or more of the respects submitted in paragraph First, was negligent, and Third, such negligence directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to plaintiff Mae Hill.” (emphasis added)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hill v. Boling

3. “Where an action is properly brought in a county in which one of the defendants resides, it may be retained notwithstanding there is a dismissal of the resident defendant, provided the following exists — the action was begun in good faith in the bona fide belief that plaintiff had a cause of action against the resident defendant; the joinder of the local defendant was not fraudulent or frivolous, with the intention of depriving the non-resident defendant of his right to be sued in his own county; and there was a reasonable claim of liability asserted against the resident defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vance v. Minton