Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 160 Md. 18 - Schneider v. Schneider

Schneider v. Schneider’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
18
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 83 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably 162 W. Va. 857 - Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co. (1979), Mahnke v. Moore (1972)

8 federal appellate · 4 district · 83 state decisions — followed in 18 states

1701930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Hewlett v. George · Roller v. Roller · Mesite v. Kirchenstein · McKelvey v. McKelvey · Deford v. State ex rel. Keyser

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

  1. “"We do not think that the fact that appellee may have been protected by liability insurance affects the answer to the question. There is no doubt of the attitude of the Court of Appeals on the effect of liability insurance for it said in Schneider [v. Schneider, 160 Md. 18 (1930)] at 24: 'Reference has been made in argument to policies or contracts held by one or both of the sons for indemnifying them against loss from recovery of judgment against them, but there is no reference in the record to such policies. They would not be relevant. The suit is not one on a policy, and the possession of a policy by the defendants could not affect the disposition of this case.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The mere fact that it may afford an owner pleasure and satisfaction to have members of his family transported in his car, entirely on their own affairs, does not render their expedition his business, so that he will be liable for the results of negligence in its conduct.””
    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.