Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 N.J. 270 - Douglas v. Harris

Douglas v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis

1961

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
2
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

113 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably O'CONNOR v. Abraham Altus (1975), White v. Violent Crimes Compensation Board (1978)

113 state decisions

360196119701980199020002010decided

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 Schierstead v. City of Brigantine · Elizabeth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Howell · Giles v. Gassert · Dixon v. Gassert · In re Merrill

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

  1. “* * * The purpose of the Fund is to provide a measure of relief to persons who sustain losses or injury inflicted by financially irresponsible or unidentified operators of motor vehicles, where such persons would otherwise be remediless. Corrigan v. Gassert, 27 N. J. 227 (1958) ; Dixon v. Gassert, 26 N. J. 1 (1958). The statute is to be liberally construed to advance the remedy, due regard being bad to tbe protection of the Fund against fraud and abuse and to the fulfillment of tbe essential legislative policy. Giles v. Gassert, 23 N. J. 22, 34 (1956). [at 279]”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “enforcement would be inconsistent with substantial justice,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The notice of the intention to enter a final judgment by default required to be given by N.J.S.A. 39:6-74 is for the purpose, as exhibited by N.J.S.A. 36:6-75, of permitting the Fund, through counsel of the insurer to whom the action has been assigned, to participate in those proceedings in order to assure that only where the liability of defendant has been established shall a claim against the Fund be allowed and then only to the extent of plaintiff’s actual damages.” Id at 280.”
    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.