Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 Ky. 268 - White v. Saunders

White v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
February 1966
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 1966

12 state decisions

60194219501960decided

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 Lieberman v. McLaughlin · Hornek Brothers v. Strubel, by Next Friend · Wight v. Rose · Nowak v. Joseph · McCulloch's Adm'r v. Abell's Adm'r

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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““in short, counsel contend that where property in the hands of a gratuitous bailee is injured by a third person contributory negligence of the bailee is imputed to the bailor. “Apparently this question has not been decided in our jurisdiction and there seems to be considerable division of opinion with reference thereto. Counsel for appellant candidly concede that the weight of authority is against them and this seems to be the case. See 45 C.J. 1027 and 3 R.C.L. 146. In the latter authority it is pointed out that the later cases have manifested a decided trend in favor of the view that contributory negligence of a bailee is not imputable to the bailor so as to de bar him from bringing an action for an injury to the subject of the bailment. We prefer to adopt this latter view, basing our conclusion chiefly on the considerations that such a bailor does not have control, or the right or duty to exercise control, of the conduct of the bailee in regard to the acts of the bailee causing the injury to the subject of the bailment and that there is no privity of contract in such cases as in engagements between principal and agent and master and servant.””
    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.