Moore v. Roddie’s Empirical Analysis
1919
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1960
2 federal appellate · 6 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Knust v. Bullock · Moore v. Roddie
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The court, however, desires to modify the broad and unqualified statement in the original opinion that ‘an automobile is a dangerous instrumentality.’ A part of the opinion was unintentionally omitted; the writer intended to say: “ ‘An automobile is a dangerous instrumentality when driven upon the highways in a careless and negligent manner; at least, more so than a horse-drawn vehicle’; followed by the statement as to an owner intrusting it to or leaving it with another, and the quotation from Knust v. Bullock, 59 Wash. 141 , 109 Pac. 329 , as to a horse-drawn vehicle. “We are not now disposed to adopt the daring innovation, as a legal principle, that an automobile is, per se, a ‘dangerous instrumentality.’ ””
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.