Murray v. Lang’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently October 1986 · most notably 40 Ill. 2d 338 - Summers v. Summers (1968), Walton v. Tull (1962)
6 federal appellate · 24 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 Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co. Inc. · 110 Cal. App. 81 - Crawford v. Foster · Lorch v. Eglin · Naudzius v. Lahr · Harper v. . Harper and Wickham v. . Harper
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus, in line with our rule of liberal construction of this statute for the protection of ‘the owner or operator of a motor vehicle’, we have in effect created a presumption, rebut-table, that an occupant riding in a car operated by another person is a guest within the meaning o£ section 321.494, and has the burden of proving otherwise in an action predicated upon negligence of the operator or owner.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Guest statute. The owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for any damages to any passenger or person riding in said motor vehicle as a guest or by invitation and not for hire unless damage is caused as a result of the driver of said motor vehicle being under the influence of intoxicating liquor or because of the reckless operation by him of such motor vehicle.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McCrady v. Sino““Tbe rider, be he owner or a total stranger, has tbe burden of removing himself therefrom [tbe provisions of tbe guest statute] if he is to recover for negligent operation alone”, and bolding both tbe owner and tbe operator were “one of the protected parties under tbe statute.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hardwick v. Bublitz
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.