Kent v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The case of Williams v. Lumpkin, 169 Miss. 146 , 152 So. 842 , is enlightening here. Indeed the case presents a set of facts which are strikingly similar to those in the present case. We quote briefly from it as follows: “ ‘The only evidence to sustain the contention that the rate of speed caused the door to come open was that, when the car suddenly swerved, the door came open. But any such swerve as shown in this record, even at the highest speed any witness testified to, would not cause a latched door of a modern automobile of the sedan type to come open. Such a swerve, however, would cause an unlatched door to come open.’ “So we think the plaintiff, Miss Miller, has utterly failed to establish the necessary fact that Kent was guilty of gross negligence. “Concede that the door of the car came open as described by Miss Miller, still it is not an incident or event which could have been foreseen by a reasonably prudent person as likely to happen if the door were latched. If it were not latched it was the omission or fault of Miss Miller, who got in the car on that side after Kent and Miss Wright had taken their seats. Fowlkes v. Southern Ry. Co., 96 Va. 742,, 32 S.E. 464 .” *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Smith v. Prater

2. “there is no such thing as negligence in the abstract, or in general, or as sometimes is said, in vacuo . Negligence must be in relation to some person.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated