Carter v. Hinkle’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2003 · most notably Caudill v. Wise Rambler, Inc. (1969), First Virginia Bank-Colonial v. Baker (1983)
11 federal appellate · 25 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 Secor v. . Sturgis · Doran v. Cohen · Dearden v. Hey · Reilly v. . Sicilian Asphalt Paving Co. · 145 Ohio St. 321 - Vasu v. Kohlers, Inc.
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[I]t is sufficient to say that the gist of an action for negligence seems to me to be the harm to person or property negligently perpetrated. * * * Two separate kinds of injury were in fact inflicted, and two wrongs done. The mere negligent driving in itself, if accompanied by no injury to the plaintiff, was not actionable at all, for it was not a wrongful act at all till a wrong arose out of the damage which it caused. One wrong was done as soon as the plaintiff's enjoyment of his property was substantially interfered with. A further wrong arose as soon as the driving also caused injury to the plaintiff's person. Both causes of action, in one sense, may be said to be founded upon one act of the defendant's servant, but they are not on that account identical causes of action. The wrong consists in the damage done without lawful excuse, not the act of driving, which (if no damage had ensued) would have been legally unimportant.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[q]uestions involving the rights of automobile insurance carriers, both liability and collision, rights of assignees, receivers, trustees in bankruptcy, and subrogees, render it essential in certain cases to allow one action for personal injury and another for property damage.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“May one who has suffered both damage to his property and injury to his person as the result of a single wrongful act maintain two separate actions therefor, or is a judgment obtained in the first action a bar to the second?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Petrus v. Robbins
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.