Krum v. Malloy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “The finding that Claire and Paul were co-owners of the automobile is not the equivalent of a finding that Paul’s operation of the car was with, or was without, the permission of Claire. It is true that the power to permit is the correlation of the power to forbid ... and that each owner of property in common is entitled to possess and use the whole property____ It is also true that the possession of one co-owner is regarded as possession for all, ... but none is entitled to a possession or usage which excludes for any period of time a like possession or usage by his or her co-owners. A co-owner, therefore, of an automobile would need the permission, express or implied, of his co-owners to that end.... In other words, it is a question of fact in cases of co-ownership, as it is in cases of single ownership, whether the operation of an automobile is with or without the consent, express or implied, of an owner who is not personally participating in such operation. The mere fact of co-ownership does not necessarily or conclusively establish that the common owners have consented to any usage or possession among themselves of a type for which permission is essential____ The mere fact of co-ownership does not prevent one co-owner from controlling use of the vehicle by the other co-owner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 79 Md. App. 20 - Wright v. Neale

2. ““The crux of the case as it stands before us is the question as to whether defendant Claire E. Malloy, the nineteen-year-old son of Paul, is liable by imputation, under section 402 of the Vehicle Code, for Paul’s (hi's father’s) negligence. . . . “A co-owner, therefore, of an automobile, who desired its exclusive possession and usage for a time, would need the permission, express or implied, of his co-owners to that end. . . . “It was error for the court to neglect to find directly on the essential issue of whether Paul Malloy’s operation of the automobile at the time of the accident was with, or was without, Claire E. Malloy’s permission.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ridley v. Young

3. ““Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for the death of or injury to person or property resulting from negligence in the operation of such motor vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, express or implied, of such owner, and the negligence of such person shall be imputed to the owner for all purposes of civil damages. ’ ’”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ridley v. Young