Packard v. Whitten’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably 20 Cal. 3d 578 - American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978), Kennedy v. City of Sawyer (1980)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Bielski v. Schulze · Walker v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. · C & L Rural Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Kincaid · Hobbs v. Hurley · Bedell v. Reagan
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We see no reason why in logic or in justice the law should expect that the joint tort-feasor should ultimately be required to contribute more — or less — than a share of the total damages proportionate to his causal fault.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The] right of contribution among unintentional joint tort-feasors is an equitable right founded upon acknowledged principles of natural justice. [ Id. at 179 .] The doctrine of contribution is a judicial concept predicated upon the equitable principle that one of two or more tort-feasors should not in fairness be required to undertake the entire burden of indemnifying the injured party. [ Id. at 180 .] We see no reason why in logic or in justice the law should expect that the joint tort-feasor should ultimately be required to contribute moreor lessthan a share of the total damages proportionate to his causal fault. [ Id. ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The right of one joint tort-feasor to contribution from another is a derivative right based upon a final determination that negligence of the ... defendant contributed to the ... injury. This determination may be made by a judgment in favor of the injured party or, when the injured party has not included the [contribution] defendant in his action, by a finding of concurring negligence which would have entitled the injured party to such a judgment if he had sought one.”
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.