Davis v. Gordon’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently March 2003 · most notably Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Zenobia (1992), 217 Pa. Super. 35 - Focht v. Rabada (1970)
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 52 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 Kelly v. Huber Baking Co. · Heinze v. Murphy · Baltimore Transit Co. v. Faulkner · Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. Hoeflich · Bannon ex rel. Coughlan v. Baltimore & Ohio Rail Road
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The other question, however, the instruction that the jury may award punitive damages, is a new one in this State in cases of automobile accidents. Here we have no rule of comparative negligence. If the defendant is negligent, the negligence resulting in injury, and the plaintiff has not contributed to the injury, the latter is entitled to recover in full for the damage and pecuniary loss. The fact that the act of negligence may be slight and not gross makes no difference. The test is, the damage done. We have many rules of the road all designed and intended to promote the public safety. They have severe penalties for their violation whether there is an accident or not. If all drivers and all pedestrians observed these rules there would not be any accidents. The rules of the road are far more effective than any inflammatory verdicts in making our streets and highways safe for travel. The fear of arrest is more of a deterrent than a verdict in a civil case for damages. “The contention of the plaintiff as expressed by his first prayer, and the charge of the court, and strenuously argued by counsel in this court, is that the negligence of defendant was so gross and wanton as to justify such an instruction. In this State that is not the test. As was said in Philadelphia, W. & B. R. R. Co. v. Hoeflich, 62 Md. 300 , 307, 50 Am.Rep. 223 : ‘* * * to entitle one to such damages there must be an element of fraud, or malice, or evil intent, or oppression entering into and forming part ”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The defendant was not being tried on a warrant charging him with driving without a license, the charge was a civil suit asking damages caused by his negligence. This question is only asked for the purpose of prejudicing the defendant and inflaming the jury. The only question for the jury to decide was whether the defendant was negligent, and as a result of his negligence the plaintiffs decedent was killed.” Id. 183 Md. at 132 .”
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.