Chester A. Parrott v. Max P. Whisler, Administrator of the Estate of Marko E. Whisler, Deceased, Thorald Johnson v. Max P. Whisler, Administrator of the Estate of Marko E. Whisler, Deceased, James Ancil Parrott v. Max P. Whisler, Administrator of the Estate of Marko E. Whisler, Deceased’s Empirical Analysis
313 F.2d 245 · 1963
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Hess v. Pawloski · Leighton v. Roper · Oviatt, Administrator v. Garretson · Plopa v. DuPre · Feinsinger v. Bard. Feinsinger v. Century Indemnity Co. Feinsinger v. Irving W. Rice & Co., Inc
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These and other questions relating to similar statutes have been litigated in the courts and while there is some authority to the contrary, the better reasoned cases and the weight of authority support jurisdiction against the nonresident personal representative. “This result would seem to follow from the decision of the Supreme Court in Hess v. Pawloski, 274 U.S. 352 , 47 S.Ct. 632 , 71 L.Ed. 1091 , which upheld the constitutionality of a statute providing for service on a nonresident motorist which was attacked on the ground that it violated the due process clause. “The rationale of Hess was that the nonresident motorist gave his consent to the appointment of the agent upon whom process could be served. We see no good reason why the motorist could not also bind his personal representative by the same consent. The agency did not terminate upon Whisler’s death because the rights of third persons had intervened, namely, the injured plaintiffs and the state of Kentucky which was attempting to provide its residents with a remedy in its courts for damages sustained by them on account of the negligent use of its highways by a nonresident motorist. “The legislative intent in the adoption of the 1954 amendment is clear. We think the amendment was a valid exercise of police power by the state. In the absence of any decision by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky on this question we feel that we should follow the better reasoned cases, particularly since they constitute the overwhelming”
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.