Beck v. Browning’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 1983 · most notably Goolsbee v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad (1951), Yarborough v. Berner (1971)
1 federal appellate · 27 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 International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. Neff
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘The principles governing liability in cases of sudden peril are: “(1) The peril or alarm must be cáused by the negligence of the defendant (meaning the opposite party, to-wit, the deceased White) ; “(2) The apprehension of peril, from the standpoint of the injured person, (the party seeking to excuse his primary negligence) must have been reasonable; “(3) The appearance of danger must have been so imminent as to leave no time for deliberation; and, “(4) In cases where the evidence raises an issue of negligence on the part of plaintiff (in this case on the part of the Phoenix Dairy, the party seeking to excuse its own negligence on the ground of emergency), the negligence of plaintiff (in this case the Phoenix Dairy, the party claiming the benefit of the emergency) must not have concurred in bringing about a situation of peril, or contributed in creating the startled, dazed, or confused condition of the plaintiff’s mind (in this case Janssen’s and Pasak’s minds).””
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Wall v. Patton · White v. Munson“The rule is sound and just which holds the party guilty of negligence responsible for the result if that negligence has caused another to be surrounded by such circumstances as to him appear to threaten the destruction of his life, or serious injury to his person, whether that person be prudent or imprudent, if, in an effort to save his life, he makes a choice of means from which injury results, and, notwithstanding, it may turn out that if he had done differently, or had done nothing, he would have escaped injury altogether.”
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.