Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 Ga. 745 - Corley v. Lewless

Corley v. Lewless’s Empirical Analysis

1971

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
10
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably Alber Ex Rel. Alber v. Nolle (1982), 20 Md. App. 179 - Matter of Sorrell (1974)

45 state decisions — followed in 10 states

19019711980199020002010decided

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 General Insurance Company of America v. Faulkner · Lloyd Adams Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · Hulsey v. Hightower · Mahaney v. Hunter Enterprises, Inc. · State Highway Department v. Hooks

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

  1. “"Code Ann. § 105-113 is not penal but seeks to provide compensation in full for property damage or for personal injury. It imposed vicarious tort liability solely on the basis of the parent-child relationship. The requirements that the parent have 'custody and control’ over the child and that the child’s act be 'wilful and wanton’ do not alter the fact that merely because of the relationship of parent and child, a tort liability is created which otherwise would not exist. It would not matter that the parent was entirely free from negligence or fault or even that he had no knowledge of his child’s tort.” 227 Ga. at 750 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[e]very parent or other person in loco parentis having the custody and control over a minor child or children under the age of 17 ... for the wilful and wanton acts of said minor child or children resulting in death, injury or damage to the person or property ... of another.” There was no limit of liability in the act. It was contended that the statute violated the due process clauses of the Federal and Georgia Constitutions. The court said in holding that the statute deprived the parents of property without due process of law:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “where there was some parental negligence in furnishing or permitting a child access to an instrumentality with which the child likely would injure a third party.”
    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.