Feinsinger v. Bard. Feinsinger v. Century Indemnity Co. Feinsinger v. Irving W. Rice & Co., Inc’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““True, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has not directly passed upon the provision in controversy but in view of State ex rel. Ledin v. Davison, 216 Wis. 216 , 256 N.W. 718 , 96 A.L.R. 589 , there is every reason to believe that it will sustain the provision when the question is presented. In that case, the court held that a statute which authorized service upon a non-resident motor vehicle operator was not applicable to the administrator of such operator’s estate, but at the same time set forth specifically and in detail the phraseology of an amendment which would evidence legislative intent to authorize service upon the personal representative of a deceased motorist. Thereafter, the Wisconsin legislature specifically and verbatim adopted the phraseology suggested by the Supreme Court in the form of the provision as it now exists. It hardly seems likely that the Supreme Court would now hold unconstitutional a legislative enactment made in conformity with the precise suggestion which it made.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brooks Ex Rel. Brooks v. National Bank

2. ““It is argued that during that time he could have applied his brakes or he could have turned either to the left or to the right. As to whether the collision could have been avoided by following any of such suggestions is purely a matter of guess and speculation. If he had suddenly applied his brakes on the ice covered highway, he likely would have met with disaster; in any event, he could not have stopped in time to avoid a collision. If he had turned to the left and the driver of the other car had suddenly decided to turn back onto his own side of the highway, the collision would not have been avoided. In that event, [the defendant] would probably have been charged with negligence for being on the wrong side of the road * * *. It must not be overlooked that [defendant] was called upon to act almost instantaneously, without opportunity to weigh the advantage of one course over another.” (Our emphasis.) id., 195 F.2d at pages 51-52.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lake v. Chicago-Indiana Freight Lines, Inc.

3. ““Bard relies heavily upon Knoop v. Anderson, D.C., 71 F.Supp. 832 , which admittedly is the only case in support of her contention. We agree that the court in that case gave the question careful and extended consideration, but we think the reasoning is unsound and, in any event, it is, as we have shown, contrary to the weight of authority.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brooks Ex Rel. Brooks v. National Bank