Davis v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 1 district · 18 state decisions

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

1. “But, so long as the parent is under obligation to care for, guide and control, and the child is under reciprocal obligation to aid and comfort and obey, no such action as this can be maintained. The peace of society, and of the families composing society, and a sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interests of society, forbid to the minor child a right to appear in court in the assertion of a claim to civil redress for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the parent.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jilani by and Through Jilani v. Jilani · FIRST UNION NAT. BANK OF CAROLINA v. Hackney

2. ““* * * Thus where a parent or child dies or the entire family unit is dissolved, there is then no relationship that public policy need protect; the reason for the doctrine is gone and the cloak of immunity disappears. * * *” 126 F Supp 497, 506 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 71 N.J. Super. 294 - Palcsey v. Tepper · Apitz v. Dames

3. ““Such waiver (of defense of improper venue) occurs whenever the party manifests an intent, express or implied, to forego this privilege. Where the court finds an ‘act’ by the defendant indicative of an intent to waive the privilege of venue, then the defendant will be precluded from asserting this defense. The waiver in this case is predicated solely upon the affirmative act of the non-resident administrator in appointing an agent to accept service in Chester County, Pennsylvania. By this act, the administrator agrees to be sued in the courts of Pennsylvania and this submission to judicial process is deemed to extend not only to the state courts, but also to the federal -courts located within the state. Citing Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., [supra]. “ * * * The waiver of Section 1391, predicated upon compliance with the state act, cannot be based upon the provisions and terms of the state act, but, on the contrary, springs from federal judicial interpretation of the effect and significance of the act of appointing the agent. The act of appointment is ■conclusive evidence of the non-resident administrator’s intent to submit to suit and waive the defense of improper venue. (Citing cases). “ * * * The crux of the matter in the present case was the defendant’s appointment of an agent to accept service of process. The fact that the agent was appointed pursuant to the directive of the state statute was incidental. The submission to judicial process and the waiver of ve”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Friele v. Schaffer