Foster v. Floyd’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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the case at bar, even though Count Four charged corporate participation in the alleged wanton act or omission, etc., by the two defendants and even though there was no such evidence, such proof was not necessary to sustain the count in view of said section 217(1), providing: * * * proof that any such party or parties committed such act by or through an agent, servant or employee acting within the line and scope of his employment shall be sufficient proof of such allegation * * “The plain meaning of this is that where proof that an agent committed an intentional, wanton, or negligent act while in the line and scope of his employment, liability for such act would be imputed to the principal, regardless of the actual participation of the principal in the intentional, wanton or negligent act or omission under the doctrine of respondeat superior. This act, of course, sets up a new statutory form of action.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Abston v. Kelley Bros. Contractors · Roberson v. Harris

2. ““ * * * But as matter of law and fact another question was also involved, viz. whether, apart from the question as to the driver’s incompetence, the doctrine of respondeat superior obtained in the premises by reason of the fact that defendant constituted the driver his agent for the operation of the car, and we have stated our conclusion that it did. As to this last phase of the case, the presence of the owner in the car was of no consequence in the circumstances shown in evidence; but the hypothesis to that effect was also immaterial and harmless, for the reason that, as we have stated, the evidence showed his presence without conflict. Eliminating the hypothesis as to the presence of the owner, charge 42 meant only that the owner of an automobile is liable for the negligence of the driver operating the car for him — a charge which might better have amplified its hypothesis and conclusion, but yet was no incorrect statement of the relevant law. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Towry v. Moore