Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Misc. 2d 116 - Bennett v. Mitchell

2 Misc. 2d 116 - Bennett v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
April 1972
most recently cited

Relationships

Relies on Schuylkill Fuel Corp. v. B. & C. Nieberg Realty Corp. · Good Health Dairy Products Corp. v. Emery · Corbitt v. Transportation Shares, Inc. · United Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Saeli

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

  1. “The plaintiff and the defendant were owners and operators of automobiles involved in a collision, and the plaintiff seeks to recover damages against the defendant on the theory of negligence. At the time of the accident there were three passengers in plaintiff’s automobile who brought actions based in negligence against the owners and operators of both automobiles, and by jury verdicts recovered judgments against the plaintiff in this action. Verdicts of no cause for action were rendered in favor of the defendant in this action. In other words, the passengers’ actions definitely determined that the accident was due solely to the negligence of this plaintiff, and without any negligence on the part of this defendant. Implicit therefore in the finding of the jury was the fact that this plaintiff was guilty of negligence which caused the happening of the accident. Does that finding bar this plaintiff from now asserting in his action against this defendant that he was free from any negligence which brought about the accident? The defendant in this action maintains that he is so barred and upon the theory that the question of his negligence was adjudicated against him in the passengers’ actions. I find myself in agreement with the defendant’s contention. This plaintiff has had his day in court on the precise question upon which he now seeks to further litigate. In the passengers’ actions the parties to this action were represented by able counsel and the issues presented were thoro”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.