Smith v. Meadows’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 68 state decisions

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

1. ““No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been intentional on the part of said owner or operator or caused by his heedlessness or his reckless disregard of the rights of others.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. De Blassie v. McCrory · Amaro v. Moss

2. ““We are satisfied that a conclusion that there was negligence on the part of the defendant’s intestate, Colucci, would have had a reasonable basis in the evidence. “But it was necessary to make out a prima facie case of something more than negligence in order to obtain a verdict against this defendant. Since the plaintiff had the legal status of a guest in this car, it was necessary for him to show prima facie that the intestate’s conduct was in heedless and reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s rights. There is no evidence and no permissible inference that this driver knowingly assumed a risk or was aware of danger, Potz v. Williams, 113 Conn. 278, 281 , 155 A. 211 , or that he was warned or requested to do anything different from what he did, Berman v. Berman, 110 Conn. 169, 170 , 147 A. 568 ; Meyer v. Hart, 110 Conn. 244, 245 , 147 A. 678 , or that he was guilty of more than thoughtlessness, inadvertence, or an error of judgment, Upson v. General Baking Co., 113 Conn. 787, 789 , 156 A. 858 ; Schepp v. Trotter, 115 Conn. 183, 185 , 160 A. 869 , or anything to justify an inference that he was indifferent to the consequences which might result to his passengers from his conduct, Ascher v. H. E. Friedman, Inc., 110 Conn. 1, 3 , 147 A. 263 . In short, there is no evidence or permissible inference that he was guilty of wanton or willful misconduct. * * *””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Fowler v. Franklin

3. ““Our statute, passed in 1935, was adopted verbatim from the statute of Connecticut which became effective July 1, 1927. (Public Acts 1927, Ch. 308, Sec. 1, recently repealed). Applying the general rule of law, the legislature of the State of New Mexico having adopted the Connecticut statute verbatim, is presumed to have adopted the prior construction and interpretation of such statute by the highest court of Connecticut. This presumption is strong and should be recognized unless it is overthrown by stronger reasons or evidence that prior construction was not adopted by New Mexico. We shall apply the general rule in. this case as we see no reason or evidence that such construction by the courts of Connecticut was not adopted. This general rule has been frequently announced by this court in the following cases: White v. Montoya, 46 N.M. 241 , 126 P.2d 471 ; McDonald v. Lambert, 43 N.M. 27 , 85 P.2d 78 , 120 A.L.R. 250 ; Palmer v. Town of Farmington, 25 N.M. 145 , 179 P. 227 ; Dow v. Simpson, 17 N.M. 357 , 132 P. 568 ; and Reymond v. Newcomb, 10 N.M. 151 , 61 P. 205 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Featherstone v. Bureau of Revenue