Klitch v. Betts’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2012 · most notably Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp. (1989), 88 Cal. App. 313 - Ley v. Bishopp (1928)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 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 Stone v. Hills · Holler v. P. Sanford Ross, Inc. · Dickinson v. Erie Railroad · Schmidt v. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America · Dierkes v. Hauxhurst Land 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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To rebut the presumption of liability of a master for damage consequent upon the negligent act of a servant, done within the apparent scope of the latter’s employment, it must be shown, either that the act was purely wanton, or that it was not performed in furtherance of any duty within the actual scope of the ■servant’s authority.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.