Flower v. Witkovsky’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 10 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The words ‘or other person’ seem to have been intended by the legislature to cover all persons injured in person or property by intoxicated persons. In Brooks v. Cook, 44 Mich. 617 [ 7 N. W. 216 , 38 Am. St. Rep. 282 ], it was held that this statute did not give a right of action to a person injured by his own intoxication, and good reason is there given for such holding. It is intimated, however, on page 619, that a traveler, injured by an intoxicated person passing him on the street, would have an action under the statute against the person selling or giving the liquor to such intoxicated person. In English v. Beard, 51 Ind. 489 , under a similar statute to ours, such right of action is given to one beaten and wounded by an intoxicated person. We have no doubt of the intention of the legislature to cover just such a case as the one at bar.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heikkala v. Isaacson

2. ““The main purpose of the act is to regulate and prohibit the sale of liquors, to provide when it shall be lawful and when it shall be unlawful, and what remedies may be resorted to in cases of unlawful selling and injuries resulting from such unlawful sales. These things all belong to one primary object, which is the distinguishing of lawful from unlawful sales under the law, and providing penalties and remedies against unlawful sales, and the natural consequences resulting therefrom.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Wheeler

3. ““It is argued that the statute does not contemplate an action by any other person than one holding a relationship of the same general character, sort, or kind as those specifically mentioned in the statute as the persons to whom a right of action is given; and that the plaintiff cannot be regarded as holding any such relationship.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heikkala v. Isaacson