Anderson v. Sellers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Such instructions tend to mislead and confuse the jury and are properly refused.” Chism v. Cowan, 425 S.W.2d 942 (Mo.1967). They are “as objectionable since the adoption of MAI as they were prior to that time. * * * Indeed, having the purposes of MAI in mind, it would seem that they are even more objectionable now.” State ex rel. Burgess v. Neaf, 439 S.W.2d 190, 194 (Mo.App.1969).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mobley v. Webster Electric Cooperative

2. “[t]here is no MAI form submitting the contributory negligence of a pedestrian who leaves a place of safety with actual or constructive knowledge of the approach of a moving vehicle and moves into the immediate path of the vehicle.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kuzuf v. Gebhardt

3. “when in the exercise of ordinary care she could have seen the movement of defendant's automobile and could have avoided contact with defendant's automobile; and . . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kuzuf v. Gebhardt