8 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 30 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Goudeaux v. Board of Police Commissioners.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Goudeaux v. Board of Police Commissioners Anchor | green | “negligence per se is in effect a presumption that one who has violated a safety statute has violated his legal duty to use due care.” | 5 |
| 2 | McHaffie Ex Rel. McHaffie v. Bunch | green | “is liable under the theory of respondeat superior for damages attributable to the misconduct of an employee or agent acting within the course and scope of the employment or agency.” | 4 |
| 3 | Scott v. SSM Healthcare St. Louis | green | “an independent contractor is one who contracts with another to do something for him but is neither controlled by the other nor subject to the other's control with respect to his physical conduct in the performance of the undertaking.” | 4 |
| 4 | Johnson v. Bi-State Development Agency | green | “the relationship of principal-agent or employer-employee is a question of fact to be determined by the jury when, from the evidence adduced on the question, there may be a fair difference of opinion as to the existence of the relationship.” | 4 |
| 5 | Blunkall v. Heavy & Specialized Haulers, Inc. | green | “principal does not need to control or direct every movement, rather only those necessary to accomplish the final result.” | 4 |
| 6 | Blunkall v. Heavy & Specialized Haulers, Inc. | green | “an agency relationship may . . . exist even if the parties did not intend the relationship.” | 4 |
| 7 | Dibrill ex rel. Wheeler v. Normandy Associates, Inc. | green | “(1) the defendant violated a statute or regulation; (2) the injured plaintiff was a member of the class of persons intended to be protected by the statute or regulation; (3) the injury complained of was of the kind the statute or regulation was designed to prevent; and (4) the v…” | 3 |
| 8 | Johnson v. Bi-State Development Agency | green | “a question of fact to be determined by the jury when, from the evidence adduced on the question, there may be a fair difference of opinion as to the existence of the relationship.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.