Pearson v. Erb’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently December 1998
8 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 Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co. Inc. · Rodgers Et Ux. v. Saxton · Gochee v. Wagner · Remmenga v. Selk · Bartek v. Glasers Provisions 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The accident having happened in the State of Minnesota, the liabilities of the parties must be determined according to laws of that state. Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Blashfield, Volume 9, Section 5791. “ ‘The question whether conduct which caused damage was negligent, so as to make the one guilty of it liable for a wrong, is determined by the law of the place where the act or omission claimed to be the cause of the damage took place.’ The Conflict of Laws, Beale, Volume 2, Section 379.1. “ ‘Whether contributory negligence of the plaintiff is a defence, in whole or in part, to an action for a negligent injury depends upon the law of the place of the injury.’ The Conflict of Laws, Beale, Volume 2, Section 385.1.” Pearson v. Erb, 82 N.W.2d 818, 821, 822 (N.D.1957).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Issendorf v. Olson““The evidence in this case clearly shows that at the time of the accident the plaintiff, Edith M. Jasper, was the registered owner of the 1959 Pontiac automobile, which was involved in this accident. “The Court instructs you that under the laws of the State of North Dakota, there is a presumption, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that an owner present in his or her car has the power to control it. However, this presumption is what is called a rebuttable presumption and can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary, which evidence the plaintiff has attempted to show.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Jasper v. Freitag
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.