Johnson v. Pacific Intermountain Express Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Fowler v. Park Corp. (1984), Lippard v. Houdaille Industries, Inc. (1986)
1 federal appellate · 22 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
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 303
Relies on American Trucking Ass'ns v. United States Eastern Motor Exp · Desist v. United States · Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. v. Brada Miller Freight Systems, Inc. · Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Whiteaker · Mellon National Bank & Trust Co. v. Sophie Lines, Inc.
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.
““Brannaker does support the proposition that the mere presence on a vehicle of a placard furnished by a carrier is not conclusive of the carrier’s vicarious liability, but it involves two factual possibilities not here present, as follows: (1) the carrier may have made reasonable efforts to terminate the lease and to reclaim its identifying signs; (2) the vehicle may have been used on a mission personal to the driver, not involving the hauling of freight for the benefit of the lessee carrier or anyone else, at the time of the accident. There is no basis in the evidence in this case for consideration of either of these theories, or any similar theories.” Id. [10] (Emphasis supplied).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Defendants’] point is not well taken. A married woman may take a name which is not that of her current husband. Cases holding that a witness must give her true name, relying on a cautionary instruction to dispel possible prejudice, are not in point because Cathy answered with her true legal name_ The defendants understandably wanted the jury to know about Cathy's remarriage in the hope that they would take this into account in determining damages in spite of any cautionary instructions that might be declaimed. Here no untrue statements were made and the jury was not deprived of any information it had a right to have. No purpose would be served by telling the jurors about the remarriage and then instructing them to disregard the information.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“are jointly and severally liable for torts committed within the scope of the venture.”
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.