Powers v. Ellfeldt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “Instruction 7 Verdict Director In your verdict you must assess a percentage of fault to defendants whether or not plaintiff was partly at fault if you believe: 1) Plaintiff knew about the partially unrolled carpet on the defendants’ premises, and 2) Despite plaintiffs knowledge the defendants should have anticipated that a risk of a customer tripping over the carpet existed even if the customer was exercising ordinary care, and 3) Defendants failed to use ordinary care to remove the carpet, barricade it or warn of it, 4) Fourth, such failure directly caused or directly contributed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Instruction 8 Converse Instruction In your verdict you must not assess a percentage of fault to defendants UNLESS you believe: 1) There was a partially unrolled carpet on driveway of defendants’ premises, and 2) There was a risk of a customer tripping over the carpet even if the customer was exercising ordinary care, and 3) Defendants failed to use ordinary care to remove the carpet, barricade it or warn of it, 4) Such failure directly caused or indirectly contributed to cause damage to the plaintiff.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McLaughlin v. Hahn

2. ““In your verdict you must assess a percentage of fault to defendant Bill Ja-kob, whether or not Daymeon Bradshaw was partly at fault, if you believe: First, either: Defendant Bill Jakob was traveling too fast for the conditions, Defendant Bill Jakob 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 stopped or swerved or slackened speed or slackened speed and swerved but defendant Bill Jakob failed to do so, or Defendant Bill Jakob was following the car in front of him to closely, or Defendant Bill Jakob failed to keep a careful lookout, and Second, defendant Bill Jakob, in any one or more of the respects submitted in paragraph, [sic] First, was thereby negligent, and Third, as a direct result of negligence, plaintiff Tomacena Gumpanberger sustained damage.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Gumpanberger v. Jakob