Johnson v. Hassett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 3 district · 61 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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hanson v. Williams County · Mund v. Rambough

2. ““Such statutes have been the result of persistent and effective lobbying on the part of liability insurance companies. The chief argument advanced in support of them has been that in guest cases the insurer, who is required to pay the damages, is peculiarly exposed to collusion between the injured guest and a host anxious to see compensation paid, so long as he does not have to pay it — so that the truth does not come out in court, and there is a resulting increase in insurance rates. Essentially, however, the theory of the acts is that one who receives a gratuitous favor in the form of a free ride has no right to demand that his host shall exercise ordinary care not to injure him. The typical guest act case is that of the driver who offers his friend a lift to the office or invites him out to dinner, negligently drives him into a collision, and fractures his skull — after which the driver and his insurance company take refuge in the statute, step out of the picture, and leave the guest to bear his own loss. If this is good social policy, it at least appears under a novel front.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nehring v. Russell · Gordon v. Kramer

3. ““On the one level there has been a group of eases involving ‘inherently suspect’ or ‘fundamental interest’ classifications, which are ‘subjected to strict judicial scrutiny.’ Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 , 93 S.Ct. 1764 , 36 L.Ed.2d 583 , plurality opinion (1973); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). The suspect classifications include those based upon some ‘immutable characteristics determined solely by the accident of birth’ such as race, national origin, sex, or illegitimacy,’ which violate ‘the basic concept of our system that legal burdens should bear some relationship to individual responsibility.’ Frontiero, supra; Glona v. American Guarantee Co., 391 U.S. 73 , 88 S.Ct. 1515 , 20 L.Ed.2d 441 (1968). “At the other level, which involves non-suspect classifications, the Supreme Court has used the ‘traditional’ equal-protection analysis, * * *” Johnson v. Hassett, 217 N.W.2d 771 at 775 (N.D.1974).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hanson v. Williams County · Tharaldson v. Unsatisfied Judgment Fund