Kavanaugh v. Wheeling’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 1999 · most notably Martin v. Cavalier Hotel Corp. (1995), Morris v. Cartwright (1953)
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions
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 Lincoln v. French · Crowell v. Duncan · Morier v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. · State Ex Rel. Steinbruegge v. Hostetter · Appalachian Power Co. v. Robertson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Under this state of the evidence and the other circumstances of this case, a finding that, because of the presence of the tomatoes on the truck, the driver was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident, would not be based on any logical inference, but would be a mere speculation. And the fact that the driver was dressed in his working clothes is, in our opinion, of even less weight. * * * Vague and doubtful inferences of this sort are certainly not sufficient to contradict the positive and otherwise unchallenged testimony of the defendant, and, as this testimony clearly rebuts the presumption arising from the defendant’s ownership of the truck and his employment of the driver, we think it is a necessary conclusion that the learned court below erred in refusing to grant the prayer of the defendant asking for a directed verdict in his favor."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Morris v. Cartwright“in an action for injuries caused by the negligent operation of an automobile, proof that the automobile was owned by the defendant at the time of the accident establishes a prima facie case for the plaintiff; in other words, from proof of the defendant’s ownership, a refutable presumption, or inference, arises that at the time of the injury the automobile was being operated by the defendant’s servant or agent”
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.