Friday v. Smoot’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 25 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 1994 · most notably CIPOLLA v. Shaposka (1970), O'Connor v. O'Connor (1986)
7 federal appellate · 25 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Babcock v. Jackson · Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc. · 26 Wis. 2d 617 - Wilcox v. Wilcox · Pack v. Beech Aircraft Corporation · Gorman v. Murphy Diesel 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“that the substantive rights of parties in a tort action are governed by the law of the place where the tort arose. . . .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The new test requires a court to determine which state has thei more significant relationship with the tort and the parties, and to apply the substantive law of that state. In making this decision the important contacts to determine the question are the place of injury, the place of negligence, the domicile of the parties, and the place where the relationship of the parties is centered. The result is to substitute for a rule which was easy of application one where all manner of gradations of important contacts may be present. “We think we may not depart by judicial fiat from a rule settled in this state to adopt a ‘flexible approach’ which must be made certain by future litigation * * * We suppose this is not the function of a court in the face of an established rule of law which would discourage such a result. We think the adoption of the more significant relationship theory would be a major change with respect to the rights of litigants. As such, therefore, it falls within the peculiar province of the General Assembly. It is the law-making body of this State—not the courts.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. White v. King“Section 379. The General Principle. (1) The local law of the state which has the most significant relationship with the occurrence and with the parties determines their rights and liabilities in tort. Section 379A. Personal Injuries. In an action for a personal injury, the local law of the state where the injury occurred determines the rights and liabilities of the parties, unless some other state has a more significant relationship with the occurrence and the parties as to the particular issue involved, in which event the local law of the latter state will govern.”
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.