Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 KAN 876 - Elliott v. Behner

Elliott v. Behner’s Empirical Analysis

1939

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
18
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably American Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. St. Paul-Mercury Indemnity Co. (1957), Jameson v. Farmers Mutual Automobile Insurance (1957)

20 federal appellate · 41 state decisions — followed in 18 states

250193919401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Rush v. Empire Oil & Refining Co. · Cox v. Kansas City Refining Co. · Robertson v. Board of County Commissioners · Bevard v. Skidmore-Patterson Coal Co. · State Highway Commission v. Saylor

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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “imply the holding out of the vehicle to the general public for carrying passengers for hire. The words”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Moreover, the exclusion clause `engaged in the business, * * * of the insured' differs materially from the clause `arising out of and in the course of his employment.' The word `engaged' connotes action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In this case the plaintiff could not have obtained a judgment against the county for the injury to her husband. Counties are only liable as provided by statute, and it is not argued that this was such a case. In this argument the garnishee is taking the position that it may sell the policy and take die premiums and never be liable, because the only way a county could be liable for the death or injury of anyone would be for them to recover on account of a defective highway. There are, however, provisions in the policy that have been quoted and discussed heretofore, making the garnishee liable for an injury caused by an automobile covered by the policy when it is being driven by some one with the consent of the county. We hold that under all tíre facts and circumstances diis is such a case.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.