Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 ARK 145 - Harris v. McClintock

Harris v. McClintock’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
April 1959
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Loftus v. . Union Ferry Company of Brooklyn · Moyer v. . N.Y. Cent. Hud. Riv. R.R. Co. · Wells v. Steele

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

  1. ““We do not think appellee could have reasonably-anticipated that a man or men would drive an automobile onto and over the ferryboat into the river in the belief that it was a bridge. It was a contingency that could not have been reasonably anticipated. The death of appellant’s intestate was the result of the wholly unexpected act of the driver and his companions. It did not occur in the natural course of things, but was the result of exceptional circumstances.””
    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.