Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 Va. 291 - Wright v. Tate

Wright v. Tate’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
states following
June 2000
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently June 2000

3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

4019671970198019902000decided

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 Meade, Adm'r v. Meade, Adm'r · Bates v. Thompson · Yorke v. Maynard · Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. Terrell · Yorke v. Cottle

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

  1. “Plaintiff’s decedent voluntarily entered the car at Hollybrook which was driven by defendant at high speeds and in a very reckless manner. When the group reached the restaurant . . . and stopped for beer, Kermit Gussler requested that he be permitted to drive back to Hollybrook, but his request was denied. He then asked the occupants to “hitchhike” back to Hollybrook with him. No one accepted his invitation and they started on the return trip, with defendant driving the vehicle. But before they left the mountain, plaintiff’s decedent told Kermit Gussler that he should drive the car. This fact is uncontradicted. Hence, plaintiff’s decedent recognized his safety was in jeopardy with defendant driving.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Here, the evidence shows that plaintiff’s decedent was a person of low mentality who was capable of performing only the simplest of tasks, could not be trusted around machinery because “he might get hurt,” and lacked initiative. There was no showing that he was insane or that a guardian had ever been appointed to care for either his person or property. There was no medical testimony with regard to his mental status.”
    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.