Estes v. Gibson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 15 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “`ought not to be extended where the party sought to be charged had no control over the machine and the other party actually committing the injurious wrong was the owner, sui juris. '”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 735 So. 2d 963 - Sligh v. First Nat. Bank of Holmes County · 956 So. 2d 897 - Laurel Yamaha, Inc. v. Freeman

2. “[I]f it should be held that an automobile could not, without assuming liability for negligent or incompetent driving, be sold or given to a person not having sufficient knowledge or training to drive the car, it would be carrying the doctrine of concurrent liability far beyond any decision coming to our knowledge. Whether by a gift or a sale when an automobile is placed in the possession and control of a person, sui juris, such transfer passes the title to the buyer or donee, and thereafter responsibility for its operation rests with such buyer or donee. If, however, at the time of delivery of possession and control, the receiving party was by reason of intoxication or other cause incapacitated from driving the machine with reasonable safety to the public, a different rule would apply. ... [The father] never had possession of the car, and exercised no control or dominion over it. The defendant [son] was over twenty-one years of age, and had by virtue of his age passed from the legal control of his parents. There can be no doubt from the evidence in this case that the car was the property of defendant [son] and that the defendant [father] had no interest in or control over it. But, whether the defendant [father] was the owner of the car or not, he was not at the time of the accident present or in control of the car, and the fact, even if proven, that [the father] knew at the time [the son] obtained possession of the car that [the son] "drank,” would not impart actionable negli”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kahlenberg v. Goldstein

3. “"But this case is different. The alleged unfit and negligent driver of the car was the sui juris owner. * * * There was no legal relationship, such as agency, bailment or the like, even in their broadest aspect. The vicarious legal liability of one person for the tortious conduct of another in which the former had no part ordinarily must rest on some such relationship. But this case rests on primary fault in the mother. To place responsibility upon a donor of an automobile to one who may or may not on a particular occasion be incapacitated to drive it could lead to placing such responsibility also upon the seller of a car to such person, or even upon one who sold him the gasoline being used to operate it."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Rush v. Smitherman