Degraff v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Sparks v. Republic National Life Insurance (1982), P. W. Siebrand & Hiko Siebrand, Doing Business as Siebrand Bros., Circus and Carnival v. George F. Gossnell and Estella Gossnell, S. J. Carroll v. George F. Gossnell and Estella Gossnell (1956)
6 federal appellate · 51 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 Lacassagne v. Chapuis · Childress v. Lake Erie & Western Railroad · 111 Ind. App. 179 - Inter State Motor Freight System v. Henry · Emmons v. Southern Pac. Co. · D. B. Loveman Co. v. Bayless
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Nor does the verdict in favor of a joined servant bar a recovery against the master where the latter has himself been guilty of acts on which independently of the acts of the servant, liability may be predicated”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendant DeGraff contends that joint tort-feasors are those who jointly, or by some concerted action, commit the wrong, and that active participation in the alleged negligence is necessary to constitute a person a joint tort-feasor. It is the defendant’s contention that this is a case of master and servant and that the master’s responsibility does not make him a joint tortfeasor, but that his liability is solely derivative. With this proposition we agree.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The complaint limits the negligence to the defendant Mundee (employee), against whom the action was dismissed with prejudice, and Mundee having been adjudged as not guilty of any negligence because of the dismissal with prejudice, we hold that the master DeGraff (employer) cannot be held liable.” (Explanatory parentheses supplied.) 62 Ariz. 270 , 157 P.2d 345 .”
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.