Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 355 Mo. 349 - Foster v. Campbell

Foster v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1946

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
1
states following
May 2013
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2013 · most notably Leidy v. Taliaferro (1953), Wolfe v. Harms (1967)

4 federal appellate · 22 state decisions

12019461950196019701980199020002010decided

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 McGinnis v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. · Hays v. Hogan · Guthrie v. Holmes · Klotsch v. P. F. Collier & Son Corp. · Hardwick v. Kansas City Gas 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It may not be said then that the evidence shows as a matter of law that the trip to West Plains was solely upon the wife’s separate business. If the trip was for the mixed or double purpose of her business and the business of her husband as well, and there was no material deviation from those purposes, it may not be said that she was not engaged upon her husband’s business when she was returning home, after having sold her produce and purchased feed, with the gasoline which she had procured at his request. 42 C.J., § 867, p. 1107; Tutie v. Kennedy, Mo.App., 272 S.W. 117 , 123; Cable v. Johnson, Mo.App., 63 S.W.2d 433 , 435. ‘An act may be within the scope of employment, although done in part to serve the purposes of the servant or of a third person. * * * The fact that the predominant motive of the servant is to benefit himself or a third person does not prevent the act from being within the scope of employment.’ 1 Restatement, Agency, Sec. 236 and comment pp. 530, 531.” (Italics supplied.)”
    3 later decisions 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.