Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 DEL 520 - Robb v. Ramey Associates, Inc.

Robb v. Ramey Associates, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
3
states following
August 2000
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably Justice Ex Rel. Justice v. Gatchell (1974), 323 Pa. Super. 466 - Miller v. Gay (1983)

9 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions

1801940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Gallegher v. Davis · Barto v. . Himrod · Kruy v. Smith · Law v. Gallegher · Affiliated Enterprises, Inc. v. Waller

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

  1. ““The maxim, like all rules of construction, is applicable under certain conditions to determine the intention of the lawmaking body when it is not otherwise clear; but it would never be permitted to defeat the plainly indicated purpose of the legislature. Great caution is required in the application of the maxim. It is not a rule of universal application, but is to be applied only as an aid in arriving at intention, and not to defeat the apparent intention. Considerations of injustice, unreasonableness or absurdity are not to be ignored. The mention of one thing is not to be held exclusive when the context shows a different intention; and the maxim does not apply to a statute the language of which may fairly comprehend many different cases, in which some only are mentioned expressly by way of example, and not as excluding others of a similar nature. [Citations omitted].””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The purpose of the statute is to protect one who, generously, without accruing benefit, has transported another in his vehicle.””
    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.