Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 376 Mich. 532 - Mosier v. Carney

Mosier v. Carney’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
12
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Maestas v. Overton (1975), Imig v. March (1979)

26 state decisions — followed in 12 states

180196519701980199020002010decided

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 2 Utah 2d 404 - Taylor v. Patten · Harvey v. Harvey

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. ““The devastating attack on the old rule found in a number of recent decisions seems to leave no possible justification for it except that of historical survival.” Prosser, Law of Torts § 122, at 864 (4th ed. 1971).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The fact that virtually the same statutory language is subject to varying interpretations by these courts suggests strongly that the actual basis for many of their decisions is a reappraisal of the common law and its rejection because no longer applicable to the facts of modern civilization. "We shall pursue a more forthright course in our disposition of the cases at bar. Since the doctrine of interspousal tort immunity is a creation of the common law and since such doctrine has never been codified in this State, it is our duty to re-examine it and, if necessary to avoid continuing injustice, to change it.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`The purpose of the statute is, of course, obvious: it was intended to remedy unconscionable results reached in litigation under the common law whereby it was financially less burdensome to tortfeasors to kill than merely to maim their victims.'”
    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.