150 Ind. App. 681 - Cheek v. Hamlin’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably 163 Ind. App. 240 - Gregory v. White Truck & Equipment Co., Inc. (1975), 151 Ind. App. 417 - Fuller v. Wiles (1972)
3 federal appellate · 20 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 Bedwell v. Debolt · Whitaker, Admr. v. Borntrager · 150 Ind. App. 179 - Mamula v. Ford Motor Company · Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Bodemer · Bernier v. Illinois Central Railroad
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This does not mean that the wrongful conduct of the driver must be motivated by malice, ill will or intent to injure.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““a. An error of judgment or a mistake standing alone, on the part of the host, will not amount to wanton or wilful misconduct. “b. The host must have manifested an attitude adverse to the guest, or of ‘perverseness’, in that the host must have shown he was indifferent to the consequences of his conduct. “c. The entire course of conduct of the host leading up to the accident must be considered. “d. The host must have had actual knowledge of danger confronting the guest.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The fact that appellant was a youth and that wanton impulses may be natural to young people does not excuse appellant of his misconduct. Neither does his immaturity excuse his failure to contemplate the consequences of his act. There is nothing in the statute which indicates a legislative intent that we should place one construction on the statute as applied to young people and another to adults. Therefore, in determining whether the driver of a motor vehicle had knowledge that injury would probably result from his wanton misconduct, responsibility for such knowledge must be measured by the standard with which reasonable men of ordinary intelligence are chargeable under the circumstances. Under our statute no person, young or old, can operate an automobile on the public highway in a manner controlled by wanton impulse or motive, under conditions known likely to produce injury, without being legally responsible to his guests for injuries caused thereby.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.