Johnston v. Long’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably 8 Cal. 4th 704 - College Hospital, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994), 2 Cal. 3d 956 - Hinman v. Westinghouse Electric Co. (1970)
3 federal appellate · 118 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 Zibbell v. Southern Pacific Co. · Ewing, Ind. Exs. v. Wm. L. Foley, Inc. · Silva v. Providence Hospital of Oakland · Hicks v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc. · Pierce v. United Gas and Electric Co.
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`The principal justification for the application of the doctrine of respondeat superior ... is the fact that the employer may spread the risk through insurance and carry the cost thereof as part of his costs of doing business.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is not the function of a reviewing court to interfere with a jury's award of damages unless it is so grossly disproportionate to any reasonable limit of compensation warranted by the facts that it shocks the court's sense of justice and raises a presumption that it was the result of passion and prejudice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“to include drivers driving within the scope of employment, the risk of injury from employees who were driving within the scope of employment is spread through insurance. Thus, the purpose of applying the doctrine of respondeat superior is fulfilled. To hold otherwise would mean an employer could be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for driving torts of the employees but would not have any insurance coverage for protection against damages arising from such torts. This would be an unreasonable interpretation of the”
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.