Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 Conn. 371 - Silver v. Silver

Silver v. Silver’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

168
cited by 168 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
28
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 163 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 168 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2006 · most notably Silver v. Silver (1929), Pierce v. Albanese (1957)

2 federal appellate · 163 state decisions — followed in 28 states

520192819301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Royster Guano Co v. Commonwealth of Virginia · Joseph Patsone v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Massaletti v. Fitzroy · Jones v. Brim · Beach v. Bradstreet

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

  1. ““If the phrase ‘or caused by his heedlessness’ is to be taken as strictly disjunctive as by itself constituting an exception to the general rule of nonliability, and ‘heedlessness’ is held to be synonymous with ‘negligence/ the entire statute is nugatory and effects no change whatever in the law as it existed before its enactment. We do not think that is a sensible construction of the statute. It would utterly fail to effectuate the obvious purpose of the Legislature in some way to limit the liability of the owner or operator of a motor vehicle to one who was riding in it as his guest. The language of the statute indicates an intention to limit such liability to two classes of cases: First, when the accident was caused by intentional misconduct; and, 'second, when it was caused by heedless or reckless disregard of the rights of others, meaning thereby something more than the mere failure to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent man which is the familiar definition of negligence.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Legislation under the police power of the state is not confined to public health, safety, or morality, but may extend to matters in the interest of the public welfare or convenience. (Citations.) * * * The legislative department is the judge, within reasonable limits, to determine what public convenience and public welfare require, and the wisdom of its legislation is not the concern of the courts. It is our duty to sustain an act unless its invalidity is in our judgment beyond a reasonable doubt. (Citations.) That the state may under the police powerregulate travel upon the public highways cannot be doubted. (Citations.) This includes the power to regulate the use of motor vehicles. (Citations.) `That the regulation of motor vehicles and motor vehicle traffic is a proper subject for legislative action under the police power is not questioned.' (Citations.) Ever since motor vehicles have come into general use they have been classified separately from horse-drawn vehicles and the power of the Legislature to impose upon their owners and operators duties not placed upon others has been generally upheld. (Citations.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Standing by itself it connotes a lack of care substantially identical with that indicated by the word ‘negligence.’ “The question for our consideration, however, is not the meaning of a single word in an abstract sense, but its meaning with due regard to its context and the meaning of the entire phrase or .sentence in which it appears. We must assume that the Legislature was familiar with the decisions of this court permitting a recovery by a guest in an automobile for injuries resulting from the negligence of the owner or operator, and that, when it undertook to legislate upon that subject, it was with the purpose of making some change in the existing law.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.