Young v. Masci’s Empirical Analysis
289 U.S. 253 · 1933
Citation profile
103 federal appellate · 33 district · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 327 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2015 · most notably International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
103 federal appellate · 33 district · 103 state decisions — followed in 25 states
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 MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Hess v. Pawloski · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland · Home Ins Co v. Dick · Frank Kane v. State of New Jersey
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 327 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A person who sets in motion in one State the means by which injury is inflicted in another may, consistently with the due process clause, be made liable for that injury whether the means employed be a responsible agent or an irresponsible instrument.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The law raises the presumption in automobile accident cases such as this, in part at least because common experience has demonstrated the probability that a defendant’s business vehicle which is driven by its employee is being operated at the time within the course and scope of his employment. Public policy contributes to this result in these cases which Mr. Justice Brandéis more than thirty-five years ago described as dealing with “the menacing problem of practical responsibility for motor accidents” and the “inadequacy (of the) * * * doctrine (of principal and agent) to cope with (it).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No good reason is suggested why, where there is permission to take the automobile into a state for use upon its highways, personal liability should not be imposed upon the owner in case of injury infl'cted- there by the driver’s negligence, regardless of the fact that the owner is a citizen and resident of another state.”
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.