Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 594 SW2D 610 - Morse v. Johnson

Morse v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 2019

1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

1201980199020002010decided

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 Smith v. Tracy · McGhee v. Bell · Thorne v. Thorne · Kendrick v. Ryus · Bollman Ex Rel. Sanderson v. Kark Rendering Plant

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

  1. “"(1) That the verdict must be clear and unambiguous so that a judgment may be written upon it without resorting to inference or to construction; (2) that if from a consideration of the whole record the meaning of the jury can be made clear and the judgment is based upon what the jury actually found, it will be upheld; (3) that verdicts should be construed to give them effect if it can reasonably be done; (4) that the jury's intent is to be arrived at by regarding the verdict liberally and (5) although defective in form, if a verdict substantially finds the question in issue in such a way as will enable the court intelligently to pronounce judgment thereon for one or the other party, it is sufficiently certain."”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “were confusing and misleading, failed to resolve the issues as to all parties, failed to follow M.A.I. 36.05, resulted in judgments that are excessive, ambiguous and unsupported by the evidence and allowed respondent a double recovery.”
    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.