Rowan v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 103 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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Gross negligence, to be the ground for exemplary damages, should be that entire want of care which would raise the belief that the act or omission complained of was the result of a conscious indifference to the right or welfare of the person or persons to be affected by it."”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rogers v. Blake · Union Transports, Inc. v. Braun

2. ““The evidence presents a familiar picture of a fine, friendly relationship between two families, each glad to contribute to the happiness and welfare of the other. We find in it no suggestion from which a legitimate inference could be drawn that such relationship was commercialized by the plaintiff’s hiring out her daughter to the defendant in consideration of the latter’s agreement to transport plaintiff to the races. Such an inference would do violence to the.motives of each party. Plaintiff was not in need of a conveyance; she had her own car. According to her testimony she initiated this trip by inviting Mrs. Rowan to go with her in her car to the races. What she did was not for the purpose of earning transportation for herself, but for the neighborly purpose of enabling her friend, Mrs. Rowan, to get away from the sick room and attend the races. As was well said by the Supreme Court of Connecticut in the case of Chaplowe v. Powsner, 119 Conn. 188 , 175 A. 470, 472 , 95 A.L.R. 1177 , the situation ‘is barren of such definite relations, contractual or otherwise, and of such tangible mutual benefits as the statute contemplates in order to remove the plaintiff from the status of a guest and the consequences attaching thereto.’ Like conclusions have been announced in somewhat similar states of fact in the following cases: Master v. Horowitz, 237 App.Div. 237 , 261 N.Y.S. 722 , affirmed, 262 N.Y. 609 , 188 N.E. 86 ; Syverson v. Berg, 194 Wash. 86 , 77 P.2d 382 ; McCann v. Hoff”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Schafer v. Stevens · Young v. Bynum

3. ““No person transported over the public highways of this State by the owner or,operator of a motor vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation, shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injuries, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been intentional on the part of said owner or operator, or caused by his heedlessness or his reckless disregard of the rights of others.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rogers v. Blake · Young v. Bynum