Bertrand v. Wilds’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 14 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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Any owner, chauffeur, or operator of any motor vehicle that is not licensed under the laws of this state, or any nonresident of the state of Tennessee who shall hire or procure the use of a motor vehicle licensed under the laws of this state, for temporary use herein, and who shall make use of the prvilege, hereby extended to nonresidents of the state, to operate such vehicle on highway or highways within the state, shall be deemed thereby to constitute the secretary of state of this state his agent for acceptance of service of process in any civil action brought by any person against him, arising out of any accident or injury occurring in this state in which such vehicle is involved. Such use of a highway shall be treated as an agreement on the part of said person that such service of process shall have the force and validity of personal service on him within the jurisdiction of this state and the county of action.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 141 F. Supp. 294 - Acuff v. Service Welding & MacHine Company · Williams v. Kitchin

2. ““It is our well-considered opinion that the statute applies to the operation of motor vehicles upon public highways by nonresidents and also to the operation of such vehicles on private property, as a necessary incident to public travel upon the streets and highways of this. State. Paduchik v. Mikoff, 158 Ohio St. 533 , 110 N. E. (2d) 562, construing the statute of Ohio, which is similar to ours, and Sipe v. Moyers, 353 Pa. 75 , 44 A. (2d) 263, construing the Pennsylvania statute, which is also similar in all respects to our own statute. “In Paduchik v. Mikoff, supra, the defendant’s contention was identical with the defendant, petitioner in the instant case, that is, that the ‘substitution of service statute’ was not applicable unless the accident happened on a public highway. The sole issue involved the jurisdiction of the local courts of Ohio over the person of a nonresident who was enjoying the privilege of using the state’s highways. In ruling upon this issue, it was held ( 158 Ohio St. 533 , 110 N. E. (2d) 567): “ ‘Unquestionably, such jurisdiction extends to the operation of motor vehicles on the public highways of the state and, in the opinion of this court, it also extends to the operation of the motor vehicle operated on private property in private garages and on private parking lots as cm incident to its operation on such highways (Emphasis supplied.) "It is true there are cases to the contrary, such as where the accident happened while operating a ‘combine harvest”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 52 Tenn. App. 619 - Dixie Feed & Seed Co. v. Byrd

3. ““But there is no escape from the conclusion under Code Section 8671 that there is an implied consent by the non-resident’s use of the highways of this State that in case of an accident involving the use of his automobile the person injured may have service of process upon the Secretary of State.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Noseworthy v. Robinson