Straffus v. Barclay’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 72 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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Since the theory of joint enterprise is to make each party thereto the agent of the other and thereby to hold each responsible for the negligent acts of the other, it may have the effect of making a passenger liable to a third person not a party to the enterprise as well as barring his recovery against a third person on the ground of contributory negligence. Howard v. Zimmerman, 120 Kan. 77 , 242 P. 131 ; Cresent Motor Co. v. Stone, 211 Ala. 516 , 101 So. 49 ; Lucey v. John Hope & Sons Engraving & Mfg. Co., 45 R.I. 103 , 120 A. 62 ; Ahlstedt v. Smith, 130 Neb. 372 , 264 Mo. [sic] 889. The contributory negligence type of case is therefore in point here. In El Paso Electric Co. v. Leeper, Tex.Com.App., 60 S. W.2d 187 , which has been cited with evident approval by this court (see Ford Motor Co. v. Maddin, 124 Tex. 131 , 76 S.W.2d 474, 476 ; Rankin v. Nash-Texas Co. [ 129 Tex. 396 , 105 S.W.2d 195 ], supra), a joint enterprise was held to exist as a matter of law as between the young lady plaintiff and her escort, who was driving her and himself in a car belonging to the young lady’s mother, who in turn had let the couple use it to go to a dance.” 219 S.W.2d at 68 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shoemaker v. Estate of Whistler

2. ““Where persons are engaged in a common or joint enterprise and each has an equal right to direct and control the conduct of the others with respect to acts or omissions which contributed to cause an injury to one of them, the negligence of one of such persons is imputed to each of the others. “ * * * Occupants of a conveyance are supposed to be on a joint expedition where they have not only a joint interest in the object and purpose of the enterprise, but also an equal right, express or implied, to direct and control the conduct of each other in the operation of the conveyance.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCormick v. Stowe Lumber Company

3. ““In fact Carl’s admitted conduct in giving Hilda the benefit of his attention to the road and of his views about turning across it, is affirmative evidence from the best source that he had not relinquished all right of control. His advanced years and the fact that Hilda customarily did the driving, while perhaps indicating of itself a relationship of principal and agent, does not militate against Carl’s right of equal control, should he elect to exercise it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Red Ball Motor Freight, Inc. v. Arnspiger