Harrison v. McCleary’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably 534 So. 2d 228 - McDougle v. Shaddrix (1988), Babcock v. Smith (1970)
24 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 152 Ohio St. 50 - Hasbrook v. Wingate · Wagnon v. Patterson · Blair v. Greene · Kemp v. Jackson · Sullivan v. Davis
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The owner, operator or person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or death of a guest while being transported without payment therefor in or upon said motor vehicle, resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries or death are caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of such operator, owner or person responsible for the operation of said motor vehicle. (Acts 1935, No. 442, p. 918; Code 1940, T. 36 § 95.)"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘... In order to keep the person transported from being a gratuitous guest, it is not necessary that he should have paid or agreed to pay directly for his transportation or be a “passenger for hire” in the legal sense of the term; and the payment or compensation which the carrier derives from the undertaking need not consist of cash or its equivalent, but may consist of some other substantial benefit, recompense, or return making it worth while for him to furnish the ride.’ 60 C.J.S., Motor Vehicles, § 399(5)b, p. 1011. [[Image here]] “..."[T]he general rule [is] that a mere incidental benefit to the driver is not sufficient to take the rider out of the guest statute. The benefit conferred must in some degree have induced the driver to: extend the offer to the rider. Further, courts have generally held that the benefit must be material and tangible and must flow from the transportation provided....””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hurst v. Sneed““ ‘The general rule is that if the transporta tion of a rider confers a benefit only on the person to whom the ride is given, and no benefits other than such as are incidental to hospitality, good will or the like, on the person furnishing the transportation, the rider is a guest; but if his carriage tends to promote the mutual interest of both himself and driver for their common benefit, thus creating a joint business relationship between the motorist and his rider, or where the rider accompanies the driver at the instance of the latter for the purpose of having the rider render a benefit or service to the driver on a trip which is primarily for the attainment of some objective of the driver, the rider is a passenger and not a guest.’ ” 281 Ala. at 90 , 199 So. 2d at 167 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.