Raub v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently May 1981 · most notably Burt v. Lochausen (1952), Burk Royalty Co. v. Walls (1981)
34 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 9 Cal. 2d 279 - McCann v. Hoffman · I. & G. N. R. R. Co. v. Cocke · Napier v. Mooneyham · 17 Tenn. App. 627 - Fly v. Swink · 16 Cal. App. 2d 364 - Rogers v. Vreeland
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Doubtless the Legislature intended to change the rule heretofore adopted in this state, that an invited guest could recover for simple negligence, and to provide that such a person could not recover in the absence of a showing of intoxication or willful misconduct; and we are of the opinion that the section is applicable to a case such as the one now before us, where the riders, on a trip purely social, and without any commercial or business element, agreed to pay their share of the running expenses of the automobile and their share of any other expense on the trip. We do not consider such an arrangement between the riders and the driver as the giving by the former to the latter of such compensation as removes the riders from the status of `guest' within the meaning of the act."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““The question has arisen in other states under statutes similar to our own statute, and it is quite generally held that an agreement on the part of the plaintiff to pay plaintiff’s share of the operating expenses of an automobile in which the plaintiff is riding does not make the plaintiff a passenger for hire or compensation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Disney v. Cook“* * * the element of material benefit to the defendant driver in the form of possible profits, where the elements of friendship and hospitality were not involved, and where the ride was taken as an integral part of a business transaction * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Simms v. Tingle
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.