Allison v. ELY’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2015 · most notably Sidle v. Majors (1976), Kennedy v. Dixon (1969)
10 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
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 Whitaker, Admr. v. Borntrager · 114 Ind. App. 688 - Lee Brothers v. Jones · 116 Ind. App. 315 - Ott v. Perrin · Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Stitzle · State Ex Rel. Watkins v. Murray
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) The motives and purposes which actuate the transaction are of prime importance. (2) The motivating reasons for the invitation to ride determine the character of the passenger, and the purpose of the trip. (8) If the purpose of the trip is primarily for business as distinguished from pleasure or social, and the presence of the passenger in the motor vehicle directly compensates the owner or operator thereof in a substantial and material way, then the guest relationship does not exist. (4) If the trip is primarily social or for pleasure as distinguished from business, incidental benefits, even the payment of money, do not exclude the guest relationship. (5) The word 'guest' has more 'social' than 'business' significance. [Citations omitted.]"”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The word ‘guest’ has more of social than business significance. The words ‘without payment for such transportation’ imply some valuable consideration for the ride. The presence of the person injured must have directly compensated the owner or operator in a substantial and material way. If the trip is primarily social, incidental benefits though monetary do not exclude the guest relationship. If the trip is primarily for business purposes and the one to be charged receives substantial benefit, though not payment in a strict sense the guest relationship does not exist. Expectation of a material gain rather than social companionship must have motivated the owner or operator in inviting or permitting the other person to ride. * * * “We do not consider the mere possibility of benefit sufficient to exclude the guest relationship. Some courts have said it must be ‘tangible and direct.’ The words imply reality, not potentiality. Courts should not be required to search for a benefit. If it is not apparent then it can hardly be said to be substantial or material.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The purchase of a few gallons of gasoline by appellee-Ely did not constitute ‘payment’ for his transportation from Oxford, Ohio, to his home in Illinois. The payment of $1.80 for gasoline and the alleged benefits listed by appellee-Ely did not directly compensate either the driver or the owner of the automobile in a substantial or material manner. ””
2 later decisions 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.