151 Ind. App. 528 - Leuck v. Goetz’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

41 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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘. . . [/] t is generally agreed that something more is required for a joint enterprise than the mere showing of a contract or agreement to travel together to a destination for a common purpose.’ “We detect an absence of the common pecuniary interest in other recent Indiana cases where joint enterprise instructions have been held inapplicable. For instance, in Leuck , a husband and wife were bound for church and a family gathering, the court holding in effect that the establishment of a joint enterprise requires more than a husband and wife embarked upon a journey with a common destina tion and common purpose.” (Original emphasis.) See also, Prosser, The Law of Torts §72 (4th Ed. 1971).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 168 Ind. App. 595 - Grinter v. Haag · Lafayette Bank & Trust Co. v. Price

2. “certainly entitled to attempt to lessen the effect in the jury's mind of [erroneously admitted] evidence without waiving his right to claim error in the admission”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Thomas v. Thomas · Strack and Van Til, Inc. v. Carter

3. ““ ‘One group of cases, now definitely very much in the minority and almost passing out of the picture, have found a joint enterprise in the mere association of the driver and the passenger in the use of the vehicle for any purpose in which they have a common interest of any kind. Thus friends on a pleasure trip together, members of the same family on the way to church, a group proceeding together to witness a prize fight, a prospective purchaser riding with a salesman, and fellow servants riding together in the course of their employment, have at various times been found to be engaged in a joint enterprise, by reason of that association alone, with the mutual right of control conjured up from the community of interest without more. Such decisions were condemned as in effect a restoration of discarded fictions of imputed contributory negligence in nearly all passenger cases, since it is seldom that some element of common purpose cannot be found when two persons are traveling together in a private vehicle. So many of the j urisdictions in which these decisions appear have repudiated them, or departed from them in later cases, that they are now almost entirely discredited ; and it is generally agreed that something more is required for a joint enterprise than the mere showing of a contract or agreement to travel together to a destination for a common purpose. Something in the nature of a common business, financial or pecuniary interest in the objective of the journey is said to ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 161 Ind. App. 437 - Ackman v. Bullard