Gordon v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In evaluating the testimony of a witness, a fact finder is not required to accept or reject the entire testimony. A witness can be correct in remembering one fact and incorrect in remembering another based on factors such as differences in opportunity to perceive and tricks of memory. A witness also may falsify some parts of his or her testimony while otherwise testifying truthfully. It is therefore well established that the fact finder is entitled to accept parts of a witness’s testimony and reject other parts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Mendoza-Balderama

2. “simply recognized that in order to find that both vehicles were in motion at the time of the collision the jury would have to believe parts of various witnesses' testimony and disbelieve other parts, as it had the power to do. Id. We conclude that, as in Gordon v. Benson, 925 P.2d at 781 , the closing arguments made by the subcontractors' counsel here were merely statements”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. D.R. Horton, Inc.-Denver v. Bischof & Coffman Construction, LLC

3. “abrogated the traditional contributory negligence doctrine and in its place substituted a statutory scheme whereby a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover so long as his or her negligence was less than that of the defendant.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCall v. Meyers