Mateer v. Union Pacific Systems’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A layman is held to know what the experiences of daily life teach and that which is commonly understood and believed. The jury could believe that plaintiff knew or should have known that he was risking some damage to his sprained ankle by continuing to work upon the painful ankle, and that his failure to report the pain was negligence on his part—even though, as was no doubt the case, he did not realize the extent of the disability which might result, or ... he “did not know and appreciate the gravity of the consequences.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bailey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.

2. “You must find plaintiff contributorily negligent if you believe: First, plaintiff failed to follow a low fat diet; or plaintiff failed to disclose to defendant that he had heart or gastrointestinal problems, and Second, plaintiff in any one or more of the respects submitted in Paragraph First, was thereby negligent, and Third, such negligence of plaintiff directly contributed to cause his injury. (Our emphasis.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bailey v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co.