Ex Parte Hicks’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 2016
13 state decisions
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 Thompson v. Havard · Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co. v. Rucker · Stevens v. Deaton Truck Line, Inc. · 52 F. Supp. 488 - Hodges v. Johnson · Dixie Stage Lines v. Anderson
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The plaintiffs first argue that because Cardinal's name appeared on the side of Bob Westbrook's tractor, and because the license tag was registered in Cardinal's name, there is an administrative or rebuttable presumption that the tractor was owned or controlled by Cardinal or that the person operating the tractor at the time of the accident was Cardinal's employee and was, at the time of the accident, acting within the line and scope of his employment. The plaintiffs cite a plethora of cases in support of that proposition. It is generally true that the registered owner of a license tag is presumed to be the owner of the motor vehicle the tag is issued for, Thompson v. Havard, 285 Ala. 718 , 235 So.2d 853 (1970). This presumption is rebuttable, however. Proctor v. State ex rel. Duke, 389 So.2d 520 (Ala.Civ.App.1980). We do not agree with the plaintiffs' contention concerning an administrative presumption in the present case. It is uncontroverted that Bob Westbrook owned the tractor. "Disputes such as the one sub judice have afforded this Court numerous opportunities to formulate a position on the evidentiary weight to be given administrative presumptions. On this point, we have said that an administrative presumption `is not an inference of fact, and that it has no intrinsic value as an inference, but that it serves in the place of evidence only until evidence to the contrary is adduced[,] when it becomes functus officio.' Cruse-Crawford Mfg. Co. v. Rucker, 220 Ala. 101, 102 ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'[W]here one operates a motor carrier under a government franchise, he assumes liability for acts done by others to whom he grants permission to use his franchise and permit.' He may not delegate his rights under his franchise and permit and thus avoid liability. See Trautman v. Higbie , 10 N.J. 239 , 89 A.2d 649 (1952); Felbrant v. Able , 80 N.J. Super. 587 , 194 A.2d 491 (1963); Phillips v. American General Insurance Co. , 376 S.W.2d 808 (Tex.Civ.App. 1964); Dixie Stage Lines v. Anderson , 222 Ala. 673 , 134 So. 23 (1931); Western Ry. of Alabama v. Turrentine , 197 Ala. 603 , 73 So. 40 (1916). The reasoning in support of this rule is the notion that *Page 70 transportation of freight upon public highways, often by means of large trucks and trailers, is fraught with an enormous danger to the traveling public. Hodges v. Johnson , 52 F. Supp. 488 (W.D. Va. 1943).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“An individual or a corporation carrying on an activity which can be lawfully carried on only under a franchise granted by public authority and which involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others, is subject to liability for physical harm caused to such others by the negligence of a contractor employed to do work in carrying on the activity.”
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.