Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 Kan. 619 - Gorelick v. Ernstein

Gorelick v. Ernstein’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
May 1974
most recently cited

10 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 23 Cal. 2d 237 - Kruzie v. Sanders · In Re Estate of Wright · Leonard v. Maryland Casualty Co. · Elliott v. Behner · Bedenbender v. Walls

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

  1. ““In determining the question whether a person is or is not a ‘guest’ within the meaning of the statute, among the many elements to be considered are the identity and relationship of the parties; the circumstances of the transportation; the nature, type and amount of ‘payment’; the benefits or advantages resulting to the respective parties growing out of the transportation; whether the ‘payment,’ of whatever nature, constituted a tangible benefit to the operator and was the motivating influence for furnishing the transportation; and the nature and purpose of the trip.” (Syl. ¶ 4.)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““That no person who is transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle, as his guest, without payment for such transportation, shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death or damage, unless such injury, death or damage shall have resulted from the gross and wanton negligence of the operator of such motor vehicle.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““. . . [W]e have said more than once that where the transportation tends to promote the common interest of passenger and driver or where it is primarily to promote some interest of the driver, the passenger is not a guest within the meaning of the statutes. (Cope v. Radford, 191 Kan. 617, 623 , 383 P. 2d 563 , and cases cited therein.)””
    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.