Taylor v. Armiger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The standard which is ordinarily applied, and which is customarily given to the jury, is to measure the child’s conduct against what would be reasonáble to expect of a ‘child of like age,' intelligence and experience.’ “Most courts have attempted to fix a minimum age, below which the child is held to be incapable of all negligence. Although other limits have been set, those most córiimonly accepted.' are' t'áken over from the arbitrary rules of the-Criminal law, as to the age at which children aré capable of crime. Below the age of seven, about a dozen states hold that the child is arbitrarily considered incapable of any intelligence. Between seven and fourteen, a number of courts hold that the child is presumed to be incapable, but may be shown to be capable; and that, from fourteen to majority, he is presumed to be capable, but that the contrary may be shown. These multiples of seven are derived originally from the Bible, which is a poor reason for such arbitrary limits; and the analogy of criminal law is certainly of dubious value where neither crime nor intent is in question. Other courts have rejected any such fixed and arbitrary rules of delimitation, and have held that children well under the age of seven can be capable of some negligent conduct. Undoubtedly there is an irreducible minimum, probably somewhere in the neighborhood of four years of age, but it arguably ought not to be fixed by rules laid down in advance without regard to the particular case.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Honeycutt Ex Rel. Phillips v. City of Wichita

2. ““[T]he capacities of children vary greatly, not only with age, but also with individuals of the same age; and it follows that no very definite statement can be made as to just what standard is to be applied to them. To a great extent it must necessarily be a subjective one. The standard which is ordinarily applied, and which is customarily given to the jury, is to measure the child’s conduct against what would be reasonable to expect of a ‘child of like age, intelligence and experience.’ There is something of an individual standard: the capacity of the particular child to appreciate the risk and form a reasonable judgment must be taken into account.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 74 Md. App. 127 - McGarr v. Baltimore Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, Inc.