Enea v. Pfister’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently December 1975 · most notably Hansberry v. Dunn (1939), 70 Wis. 2d 1022 - Hoeft v. Friedel (1975)
1 federal appellate · 28 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 Potts v. . Pardee · Fransen v. Kellogg Toasted Corn Flake Co.
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is generally an easy matter to prove the ownership of a car that inflicts injury. The public records afford evidence of this fact. But the question of whether the car was at the time being operated in the prosecution of the defendant’s business is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant, and one upon which it is at times exceedingly difficult for - the plaintiff to obtain proof. The exigencies of justice require the application of such a rule, which we approve and adopt.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is the law of this state that ‘proof of the ownership of a car makes out a prima facie case [of agency], on the theory that this fact justifies an inference or raises a presumption that he who was driving the car was the agent or servant of the owner and that he was driving it in pursuit of the owner’s business and within the scope of his employment.’ [Citing cases.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sevey v. Jones““While the evidence on the part of a defendant may be so clear and convincing as to overcome the probative force of the inference justified by the fact of ownership, the evidence on behalf of the defendant in this case is not of that order and the finding should not have been disturbed by the trial court.””
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.