Fowler v. Park Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 118 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Callahan v. Cardinal Glennon Hospital (1993), Lopez v. Three Rivers Electric Cooperative, Inc. (2000)
113 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 Newlon v. Missouri · Walgren v. United States · State v. Newlon · Borgstede v. Waldbauer · Hudson v. Carr
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 118 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If counsel is presented with an instruction containing a patent error, and is of the opinion that the instruction might make argument more difficult or have a substantial effect on the jury, it is perfectly possible to request a correct instruction at the instruction conference mandated by Rule 70.02(a). Lawyers take a chance in deliberate silence in the face of error, inasmuch as Rule 70.02(c) does not command reversal simply because there is a deviation from MAI. There is a risk that the court ■will find that the error is not prejudicial so as to require reversal. Retrials are burdensome. There has been in recent years a trend away from reversal for error in instruction, unless there is a substantial indication of prejudice.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The day is passed when this court and the courts of appeals engage in close scrutiny of the amounts awarded by juries for personal injuries. We rely on the trial judge ... We do not disclaim our authority, or that of the courts of appeals, to give attention to the size of verdicts, or to order remittiturs if persuaded that there has been a clear abuse of discretion. There may be cases in which the award is so far out of line, when compared to the tangible damages shown, that the appellate court could be impelled to take corrective action.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“negligent” and “negligence.” The difference between the instructions was that the instruction used defined those words in terms of the care that “a very careful and prudent person” would use, whereas the definition should have been in terms of the care that “an ordinarily careful and prudent person” would use. (Emphasis in original.) . Instruction No. 9 read:”
2 later decisions 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.