Simon v. Dew’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
2 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 2001
2 district · 11 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 Rosenberg v. Murray · Hiscox v. Jackson · Curry v. Stevenson · Simon v. City Cab Co. · Peabody v. Marlboro Implement 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Once the defendant’s ownership has been established, the statute creates a presumption of agency which places the burden of proof as to the question of consent upon the defendant-owner. (2) The defendant-owner overcomes the statutory presumption when he [or she] offers uncontradicted proof that the automobile was not at the time being used with his [or her] permission. When the presumption is thus overcome, the defendant-owner :s entitled to a favorable finding as a matter of law. (3) Where the defendant-owner offers some credible evidence to overcome the presumption, but evidence not strong enough to entitle him [or her] to judgment as a matter of law, the question of liability resolves itself into a question of fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Cuff““Whenever any motor vehicle, after the passage of this chapter, shall be operated upon the public highways of the District of Columbia by any person oth er than the owner, with the consent of ■ the owner, express or implied, the operator thereof shall, in case of accident, be deemed to be the agent of the owner of such motor vehicle, and the proof of the ownership of said motor vehicle •shall be prima facie evidence that such person operated said motor vehicle with the consent of the owner.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McMickle v. Nickens
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.