Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 F.2d 675 - Mayer v. Puryear

Mayer v. Puryear’s Empirical Analysis

115 F.2d 675 · 1940

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
3
states following
December 1971
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1971

3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

401940195019601970decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Swift v. Tyson · Massaletti v. Fitzroy · The Steamboat New World v. King · Boggs v. Plybon

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.

  1. ““ * * * The word ‘guest’ is used to denote one whom the owner or possessor of a motor car or other vehicle invites or permits to ride with him-as a gratuity, that is, without any financial return, except such slight benefits as it is customary to extend as part of the ordinary courtesies of the road.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The statute represents a legislative codification of the gross negligence rule as established in the State of Virginia by the case of Boggs v. Plybon, 1931, 157 Va. 30 , 160 S.E. 77 . This case specifically adopted the Massachusetts, or minority, rule as promulgated in the leading case of Masseletti v. Fitzroy, 1917, 228 Mass. 487 , 118 N.E. 168 , L.R.A.1918C, 264, Ann.Cas.1918B, 1088, that gross negligence must be proved to make out liability in a gratuitous undertaking.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ -x- * * Obviously, the original gratuitous undertaking of the owner was the basis for the application of the ‘guest’ status. So long as the nature of this undertaking has not changed, and so long as the undertaking continues, the host-guest relationship will be respected, regardless of the actual position of the parties in the automobile at the time of the accident.””
    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.