McNamara v. Prather’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently January 2011
3 federal appellate · 17 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 Ludwig v. Johnson · Bradley v. Schmidt · Abell v. Whitehead · Euster v. Vogel · Creaghead v. Hafele's Administrator
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The so-called 'family purpose doctrine', which is applied in automobile cases, originated in the desire of the courts, as a matter of justice or supposed necessity, to charge one who had purchased a car for the use of his family, with responsibility for injury or damage resulting from its negligent operation by a member of his family. It was quite generally recognized that liability could not be based on the doctrine of master and servant, or principal and agent, as it had previously been applied. Owing, however, to the multitude of cases and the seeming injustice in allowing one so to purchase a car, turn it over to a member of his family, and thus make possible injury or damage to an innocent person, the principles of the law of master and servant and principal and agent were stretched by the courts in some jurisdictions, beyond their former limits, to include the so-called 'family purpose doctrine,' whereunder liability is imposed where none before existed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ray v. Porter“"We have never held that the father is liable merely because he is the head of the family . . . . In Steele v. Age's Adm'x, 233 Ky. 714 , 26 S.W.2d 563 , it was held that the family purpose doctrine was applicable to the mother where she, though married, owned the car and maintained it for general use, pleasure, and convenience of members of her family." McNamara v. Prather, 277 Ky. 754, 756 , 127 S.W.2d 160, 161 (1939).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Johnston v. Hodges““We have never held that the father is liable merely because he is the head of the family, but the one who owns, maintains, or provides the car for family use is liable for its negligent operation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rutherford v. Smith
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.