Monacelli v. Grimes’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 9 district · 56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably Gray v. Armijo (1962), Spielberg v. State (1989)
7 federal appellate · 9 district · 56 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 Wuchter v. Pizzutti · Hamilton v. Rathbone · Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. State · Welch v. Humphrey · Duggan v. Ogden
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§ 3112. Service of process on non-resident operators of motor vehicles “ (a) Any non-resident owner, operator or driver of any motor vehicle, who accepts the privilege extended by law to non-residents of this State to operate or drive such motor vehicles on the public streets, roads, turnpikes or highways of this State by operating or driving such motor vehicle or by having the same operated or driven on any public street, road, turnpike or highway of this State shall by such acceptance of the privilege be deemed thereby to have appointed and constituted the Secretary of State of this State, his agent for the acceptance of legal process in any civil action against such nonresident owner, operator or driver arising or growing out of any accident or collision occurring within this State in which such motor vehicle is involved. The acceptance shall be a signification of the agreement of such non-resident that any such process when so served shall be of the same legal force and validity as if served upon such non-resident personally within this State, * * *. “(b) Service of the legal process provided for in this section * * * shall be made upon the Secretary of State of this State in the same manner as is provided by law for service of writs of summons, and when so made shall be as effectual to all intents and purposes as if made personally upon the defendant within this State; provided, that not later than seven days following the filing of the return of services of process in ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Griffin v. Granger“When the language of a statute as revised and embodied in a code as positive law is plain and unambiguous, when its meaning is clear, and when it is unmistakably chosen for the purpose of effecting a change in the law, there is no room for construction, and the courts must enforce the statute as written. “It is, of course, true that if the existing law is, in fact, changed either by a Code, in its strict sense, or by a revision or compilation of statutes, the adoption of the Code, revision or compilation effectuates the change, no matter what the authority of the codifiers may have been.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““To accept this contention would be to reduce the Code to a mere compilation of prior statutes, having no force as law except-as each section might conform to the substance of its predecessor. The principal legislative purpose would thus be defeated, since the intent to enact the Code as positive law is beyond question.” 99 A.2d at 264 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Roy v. Williams
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.