Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 F.2d 711 - Medes v. Hornbach

Medes v. Hornbach’s Empirical Analysis

6 F.2d 711 · 1925

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
3
states following
March 1974
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1974 · most notably Kendall v. Gore Properties, Inc. (1956), Howard v. Swagart (1947)

11 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

140192519301940195019601970decided

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 Claflin v. . Meyer · Knights v. Piella · Colburn v. Washington State Art Ass'n · Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Fawkes · Staley v. Colony Union Gin Co.

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

  1. “It is the duty in general of one operating a garage in which automobiles are kept in storage for pay to exercise ordinary care by the employment of trustworthy servants and otherwise for the safekeeping of the cars in his charge. On the other hand, he is not an insurer of their safety, and if a stored car is stolen from the garage without negligence upon his part, he is not in general liable to the owner for the loss. This rule likewise applies, should the thief be an employee of the person operating the garage, if the theft occurs without the connivance or negligence of the employer. Nevertheless, when the proof establishes that a stored car, while in the charge of the garage keeper, has been taken out and used by an employee of the latter, without the knowledge or consent of the owner, and has been damaged by such use, such proof, standing alone and unexplained, is sufficient to make out a prima facie case for a recovery by the plaintiff.”
    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.