Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 213 Ark. 246 - Miller v. Blanton

Miller v. Blanton’s Empirical Analysis

1948

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
11
states following
October 2008
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently October 2008 · most notably 217 Pa. Super. 35 - Focht v. Rabada (1970), Gombos v. Ashe (1958)

7 federal appellate · 52 state decisions — followed in 11 states

2101948195019601970198019902000decided

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 Texarkana Gas & Electric Light Co. v. Orr · St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Dysart · Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Lawrence · St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Stamps · Railway v. Hall

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

  1. ““The evidence showed that Miller, after drinking intoxicating liquor to the extent that his talk and his walk were noticeably affected, and to the extent that, according to his own statement, he was ‘half drunk’, entered his car and sought to drivé it over an improved state highway. * * * “When Miller imbibed alcoholic liquor he knew that he was taking into his stomach a substance that would stupefy his senses, retard his muscular and nervous reaction, and impair, if not destroy, the perfect coordination of eye, brain and muscles that is essential to safe driving. After Miller voluntarily rendered himself unfit to operate a car properly he undertook to drive his automobile, a potentially lethal machine, down a well traveled highway. * * * ****** “It is argued by appellant, Columbia Pictures Corporation, that punitive damages against it were not recoverable because there was no proof that it participated in, authorized or ratified, Miller’s wrongful conduct. * ***** “But in most jurisdictions, ‘exemplary or punitive damages may be recovered from an employer for acts or omissions of his employee done or omitted to be done in the scope and course of his employment whenever the employee’s acts are of such character as to form the basis for an allowance of exemplary damages, even though these acts were done without the employee’s [employer’s] knowledge or authorization and were not subsequently ratified by him, regardless of whether he did or did not know the servant to be incompe”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"When persons living near by reached the scene the abnormal condition of appellant Miller was apparent. One of these testified that Miller's breath smelled of liquor, and that his tongue seemed to be thick. Another witness noticed the liquor on his breath and said that he staggered when he tried to walk. This witness expressed the opinion that Miller was drunk. Uncertainty about his condition was removed by the testimony of Miller himself. He testified that during a few hours before he left Mena he had consumed `four or five highballs' and that he was `half drunk'. He admitted that he was on the wrong side of the road when his car struck appellee's automobile, and could give no reason whatever for driving over this hill on his left-hand side of the highway."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““But in most jurisdictions, ‘exemplary or punitive damages may be recovered from an employer for acts or omissions of his employee done or omitted to be done in the scope and course of his employment whenever the employee’s acts are of such character as to form the basis for an allowance of exemplary damages, even though these acts were done without the employee’s [employer’s] knowledge or authorization and were not subsequently ratified by him, regardless of whether he did or did not know the servant to be incompetent or disqualified for the service in which he was engaged.’ ” 210 S.W.2d 293 , 296.”
    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.