Williams v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
1 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 156 Ill. 2d 76 - Cates v. Cates (1993), 105 Ill. App. 3d 965 - Larson v. Buschkamp (1982)
1 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 19 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 3 Cal. 3d 914 - Gibson v. Gibson · Goller v. White · Immer v. Risko · Falco v. PADOS · Hewlett v. George
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When insurance is involved, the action between parent and child is not truly adversary; both parties seek recovery from the insurance carrier to create a fund for the child’s medical care and support without depleting the family’s other assets. Far from being a potential source of disharmony, the action is more likely to preserve the family unit in pursuit of a common goal — the easing of family financial difficulties stemming from the child’s injuries.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“... [T]here is something wanting in a system of justice which permits strangers, friends, relatives and emancipated children to recover for injuries suffered as a result of their driver's negligence but denies this right to the driver's spouse and minor children who are also passengers in the same vehicle.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[W]e are of the opinion that an absolute rule of parental immunity in tort has no rational basis under modem day conditions and circumstances, especially [with] the prevalence of liability insurance. We hold, therefore, with an ever-increasing number of jurisdictions, that in an action for negligence arising from an automobile accident, brought on behalf of an unemancipated minor child against a parent, the doctrine of parental immunity is not applicable to the extent of the parent’s automobile liability insurance coverage; but that, otherwise, the doctrine is applicable in such case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.