Elliott v. Behner’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently February 1972 · most notably Leonard v. Maryland Casualty Co. (1944), Bedenbender v. Walls (1955)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 38 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 Bushnell v. Bushnell · O'Brien v. Woldson · 120 Ohio St. 239 - Bloom v. Leech, Admr. · Farmer v. Central Mutual Insurance · Jensen v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““That no person who is transported 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 injury, death or damage, unless such injury, death or damage shall have resulted from the gross and wanton negligence of the operator of such motor vehicle.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The statute does not define the word ‘guest’ as used in the statute. Perhaps it is impossible to frame an accurate definition of that term. Its meaning must be worked out from the facts of the cases as they arise. . The common-law meaning of the term as given in the Restatement of Torts, section 490, Comment a, is as follows: ‘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 is customary to extend as part of the ordinary courtesies of the road.’” (p. 830.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gorelick v. Ernstein““Assuming that the driver and other occupants of a truck are engaged in a joint enterprise, it would not preclude one of them from recovering damages from the driver for injuries sustained through the latter’s negligent driving. The doctrine of imputed negligence has no application in such action.” (Syl. 4.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lightcap v. Mettling
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.