Cassingham v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis
1915
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently July 1990
12 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 Shawnee v. Cheek · State v. Pagels · State v. Dusenberry · Huckshold v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. · Spengler v. St. Louis Transit Co.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The importance, delicacy, hazard and moment of the undertaking all enter into the question as to what, under the circumstances, amounts to reasonable and (ydinary care, and is a question of fact for the jury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bungardt v. Younger““Common sense dictates that leaving the sponges in the abdominal cavity is absolutely and totally inconsistent with the exercise of ordinary care.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roark v. Peters
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.