Dym v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 5 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 160 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably CIPOLLA v. Shaposka (1970), O'Connor v. O'Connor (1986)
29 federal appellate · 5 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 16 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.
Relationships
Relies on American Banana Company v. United Fruit Company · Alaska Packers Ass'n v. Industrial Accident Commission · Loucks v. . Standard Oil Co. · Mertz v. Mertz
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 160 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... it is necessary first to isolate the issue, next to identify the policies embraced in the laws in conflict, and finally to examine the contacts of the respective jurisdictions to ascertain which has a superior connection with the occurrence and thus would have a superior interest in having its policy or law applied.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * the policy underlying Colorado’s law is threefold: the protection of Colorado drivers and their insurance carriers against fraudulent claims, the prevention of suits by ‘ungrateful guests’, and the priority of injured parties in other cars in the assets of the negligent defendant.” 16 N.Y.2d at 124 , 262 N.Y.S.2d at 466 , 209 N.E.2d at 794 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Here, necessarily, the only valid competing consideration bearing on the host-guest relationship is that of domicile. However appealing it might seem to give effect to our own public policy on this issue, merely because the negligent driver of the car in the collision, and his guest, are domiciled here, to do so would be to totally neglect the interests of the jurisdiction where the accident occurred, where the relationship arose and where the parties were dwelling, and to give an overriding significance to a single factor reminiscent of the days when British citizens traveled to the four corners of the world secure in the belief that their conduct would be governed solely by the law of England.” Dym v. Gordon, supra, 262 N.Y.S.2d at 468 , 209 N.E.2d at 796 .”
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.