Reed v. Bloom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 2 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It may well be, as is suggested in Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Lee, 232 Ky. 556 , 24 S. W. 2d 278 , that, where persons who are guests in an automobile, or are engaged in a joint venture with the owner or operator of the car, put gas in the ear or contribute to the cost of purchasing gas for the trip which they are making, the owner or operator of the car is not carrying passengers for a consideration within the meaning of the exception here under consideration. But, wherever the facts are such that the operator of the ear has cast upon him the duties and high degree of care that a person carrying another for compensation owes to the person so carried, the risk of liability for injuries arising from the negligence of the operator is excepted from the coverage by the provisions here under consideration. "”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCornack v. Pickerell

2. ““The authorities seem to draw a distinction between a case where a private automobile, under a contract and agreement, is used for the purpose of transporting persons as passengers for a definite sum, and where a private automobile is 'used incidentally for the transportation of persons and the persons so transported contribute a sum for the purchase of oil and gas. In other words, if the owner of a private automobile agrees in advance to transport a passenger from one place to another for a definite sum, then that is recognized as being within the exclusions enumerated in the policy.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCornack v. Pickerell

3. ““The arrangement for compensation under which he was carrying his passengers was more than a mere reimbursement for the gas and oil used by all in common on the trip. It went to the additional extent of compensating him for the use of the car. Had he been paid only a sum equivalent to the cost of the gas and oil used, a serious question might have arisen as to whether such payment would have constituted a carrying for hire. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McCornack v. Pickerell