Smith v. Tripp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

28 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. That the evidence is not sufficient to raise an administrative inference of ownership of the truck in the defendant; 2. That even assuming such an administrative inference can be said to exist, it will not, in turn, support a further administrative inference of agency in the operator of the truck, without doing violence to the rule that no inference can be built upon an inference ; 3. That whether this be so or not, no such presumption of agency could possibly be indulged in favor of a mere occupant, sitting next to the driver; 4. That the principle of law which creates the inference of master and servant relationship in cases where the alleged agent is shown to have performed services peculiar to the business of the defendant on the latter’s premises does not apply in the present case, because the evidence fails to show such services, and the evidence fails to show the performance of services in furtherance of the defendant’s business on the latter’s premises; 5. That since neither the inferences of agency set out above arise from the facts of the case, there is no evidence in the record to show that the person involved was the agent, servant or employee of the defendant, acting within the line and scope of his employment; 6. That assuming all these propositions to be adverse to the defendant, the evidence was so clear, convincing and uncontradictcd, that the defendant was due the affirmative charge, and even if not, the verdict was contrary to the great weight of the evi”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. BARBER PURE MILK COMPANY v. Holmes

2. ““ * * * when the injury or loss results from active force applied and arises under the doctrine respondeat superior, the rules of good pleading require that, the complaint by way of inducement show the instrumentality causing the injury, and that the agent or servant to whose acts negligence is ascribed had actual manual control of such instrumentality or was present directing its movement. * * * ” [Emphasis supplied.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. BARBER PURE MILK COMPANY v. Holmes