Raines v. Mercer’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2010 · most notably Koplik v. C. P. Trucking Corp. (1958), Koenigs v. Travis (1956)
3 federal appellate · 2 district · 44 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The marital unity, which settled rules of law we have recognized through so many years, prevents the operation of those general statutes designed to remove particular disabilities of married women. The question is not whether disabilities have been removed but whether the long-prevailing rule of the law, declaring husband and wife to be one person, in legal contemplation, has been annulled. Until this rule is annulled by statute, all rights of action for antenuptial wrongs of the husband to the wife are extinguished by their marriage. Because marriage extinguished antenuptial actions for tort between husband and wife, the wife could not maintain an action against him for injury to her person committed before marriage or during coverture. Henneger v. Lomas, 145 Ind. 287 , 44 N.E. 462 , 32 L.R.A. p. 848; Schouler’s Husband and Wife, sec. 81; 30 C. J., 714, 715, note 71; Tobin v. Gelrich, 162 Tenn. 96 , 34 S.W.(2d) 1058 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Monk v. Ramsey““The doctrine of respondeat superior rests upon the doctrine that the wrong of the agent is the act of his employer. 18 R.C.L., 786; Goodman v. Wilson, 129 Tenn. 464 , 166 S.W. 752 , 51 L.R.A., (N.S.) 1116. “If the agent, the immediate actor, cannot be charged with liability for the tort, the principal, the remote actor, who had no immediate part in the tortious transaction, cannot be held responsible, for, as held in Loveman Co. v. Bayless, 128 Tenn. 317 , 160 S.W. 841 , if the remote actor had no other direct relation to the wrong or injury, but is liable only because of the doctrine of respondeat superior, he does not occupy the position of a wrongdoer.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.