Brandt v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2012
4 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2671
Relies on Panama Co v. Johnson · Olberding v. Illinois Central Railroad · Commercial Casualty Ins Co v. Consolidated Stone Co · Lesnik v. Public Industrials Corp. · Benatar v. United States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question, then, is whether an Iowa Court in which a defendant is sued for damages allegedly resulting from his negligent operation of a motor vehicle upon an Iowa highway and who wishes to assert a claim for indemnity or contribution against a third party as an alleged concurrent tort-feasor, may acquire jurisdiction of such party by serving him under the Iowa Nonresident Motorist Service Act. «# # # “It is the contention of the defendants that if judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff on her claim against them arising out of the collision, under the Iowa law they are entitled to either indemnity or contribution. * * * “It seems clear that such a claim is one for damages to person or property growing or arising out of use and operation of a motor vehicle upon the Iowa Highways. The term ‘all civil actions and proceedings’ is very broad in scope. It is the view of the Court that the third-party claim comes within the scope of Section 321.498, subd. 1 of the Iowa Nonresident Motorist Service Act, and that the Iowa Supreme Court would so hold were the question presented to it.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““1. An agreement by him that he shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the district court of this state over all civil actions and proceedings against him for damages to person or property growing or arising out of such use and operation, and”
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.