Brooks v. Childress’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently December 2008 · most notably Doughty v. Prettyman (1959), Crowe v. Houseworth (1974)
44 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 Greenfeld v. Hook · Belle Isle Cab Co. v. Pruitt · Shedlock v. Marshall · Miller v. Graff · Sun Cab Co. v. Faulkner
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Did the amendment change, the cause of action? As we have said the suit was brought under Art. 67 of the Code, which permits an action to be maintained to recover damages whenever the death of a person shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect or default; 7 if the act, neglect or default (had death not ensued) would have entitled the injured party to recover damages in respect thereof. Now, the original declaration though defective was founded on the alleged negligence of the defendant. The fact that the narr was insufficient in law — that it did not accurately and formally set forth the real cause of action — did not prevent the suit itself from being a pending suit wherein the gravamen was the negligence of the defendant. When the amendment was made precisely the same cause of action was declared on'____The negligence alleged in the first count was the negligence of the defendant through its agents, but was none the less the negligence of the master, though as respects a servant of the master it was not actionable. In the second count the negligence alleged was again the negligence of the master in failing to exercise due care in the selection of the fellowservants by whom the injury was inflicted. But the suit to recover for the defendant’s negligence was precisely the same after the amendment had been made that it was antecedently. The statement of the cause of action was different but the cause of action itself was identical. Injury resulting in death is what occasioned ”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) The application of any person under the age of eighteen (18) years for an instruction permit or operator’s or chauffer’s license shall be signed and verified, before a person authorized to administer oaths, by a parent or guardian of the applicant.... The Department [of Motor Vehicles] shall clearly set forth on the application the responsibilities assumed under this section. “(b) Any negligence of a minor under the age of eighteen (18) years when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway of this State shall be imputed to the person who has signed the application of such minor....””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The main reason given by the trial judge in refusing the further amendment was that, if it were permitted, the second amended declaration would then state an entirely different cause of action from that then declared upon. With this conclusion... we do not agree.””
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.