Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 229 Minn. 428 - Foster v. Bock

Foster v. Bock’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
states following
November 1974
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 1974 · most notably Kolatz v. Kelly (1955), Ryan v. Griffin (1954)

26 state decisions

1601949195019601970decided

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 Hardware Mutual Casualty v. Same · Moore v. Kujath · Carlson v. Fredsall · Kerns v. Lewis · Storey v. Weinberg

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

  1. ““* * * Although a formal exception need not be taken to an inadvertent omission or error in a trial court’s instruction to the jury, such omission or error is no ground for granting a new trial unless the trial court’s attention has been seasonably directed thereto in some manner.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““* * * Does the essential consent mentioned in the statute relate to the driver, or to the vehicle ‘being driven’? The statute makes the owner liable if the ‘motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge,’ and we cannot read into it the restriction that the particular driver must be known by and his driving consented to by the owner.” 229 Minn. 435 , 39 N. W. 2d 866 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““* * * A bailee, who without limitation is given the use of a car, is for the time given possession and control of the vehicle for a designated purpose without restriction as to whether it shall be driven by him personally or by another under his supervision. Hardware Mut. Cas. Co. v. Mitnick, 180 Md. 604 , 26 A. (2d) 393. In the instant case, there were no terms of qualification or limitation.””
    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.