Schwartz v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1925
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 107 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Powers v. State Ex Rel. Reynolds (1940), Baltimore Co. v. State, Use of Keenan (1963)
2 federal appellate · 107 state decisions — followed in 20 states
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.
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In a joint enterprise, in order to impute the negligence of one of the parties to the other, each must have authority to control the means or agencies employed to execute the common purpose. Nesbit v. Town of Garner, 75 Iowa 314 , 39 N. W. 516 , 1 L. R. A. 152, 9 Am. St. Rep. 486 ; Koplitz v. St. Paul, 90 N. W. 794 , 86 Minn. 373 , 58 L. R. A. 74. “ ‘Parties cannot be said to be engaged in a joint enterprise, within the meaning of the law of negligence, unless there be a community of interest in the objects or purposes of the undertaking and an equal right to direct and govern the movements and conduct of each other with respect thereto. Each must have some voice and right to be heard in its control and management.’ Cunningham v. City of Thief River Falls, 84 Minn. 21 , 86 N. W. 763 .’’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘It is somewhat difficult to state a comprehensive definition of what constitutes a joint enterprise as applied to this class of cases, but is perhaps sufficiently accurate for present purposes to say that to impute a driver’s negligence to another occupant of his carriage, the relation between them must be shown to be something more than host and guest, and the mere fact that both have engaged in the drive because of the mutual pleasure to be so desired (derived) does not materially alter the situation.’ ” Withey v. Fowler Co., 145 N. W. 923 , 164 Iowa 377 (Emphasis ours).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We doubt if this'is a case of joint enterprise, in which the negligence of the driver of the car in respect to its operation could be imputed to his companion. The car belonged to the elder Johnson, who allowed it to be used by his son, and the son was running the car. It does not appear that the Schwartz boy was undertaking to direct the operation of the car, or had any authority so to do.””
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.