White v. . Chappell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 34 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Ordinarily, when the relationship of carrier and passenger is created, it continues until the journey, expressly or impliedly, contracted for has been concluded, unless the passenger sooner terminates or relinquishes his right as such. 13 C.J.S., Carriers, sec. 566, p. 1075; Wallace v. Norfolk Southern R. R., 174 N. C. 171 , 93 S. E. 731 . In either event, whether the journey so contracted' for has been concluded, or sooner terminated or his right thereto relinquished by the passenger, such relationship ordinarily ends when the passenger has alighted from the bus in a place of safety on the street or highway. 13 C.J.S., Carriers, sec. 565, p. 1074; Waldron v. Southwestern Bus Co., 42 Ohio App. 549 , 182 N. E. 596 ; Roden v. Connecticut Co., 113 Conn. 408 , 155 A. 721 ; Lewis v. Pacific Greyhound Lines, 147 Ore. 588 , 34 P. 2d 616 , 96 A.L.R. 718 . Annotations 31 A.L.R. 572 , and 96 A.L.R. 727 , where cases are assembled. See, also, Cooke v. Elk Coach Line, 7 W. W. Harr., Del. 120, 180 A. 782 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Southwestern Motor Carriers, Inc. v. Nash

2. ““In respect of a child of tender years, it has been held or recognized that the primary duty of caring for such child is on the parents or their representative who has the immediate custody of such child, and that, where such child is in the care of his parent, the carrier, through its employees, has the right to rely on the presumption that the parent will take such care of the child as the natural love of the parent would prompt him or her to exercise under the circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Burnett v. Wilder

3. ““However, the carrier is not entitled to act upon such presumption where the carrier’s employees who are engaged in the operation of its bus know, or, in the exercise of reasonable care and diligence should know, that such child is or will be exposed to danger or injuries by acts or negligence of the carrier’s employees.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Tri-State Coach Corp. v. Stidham