Fabling v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 1984 · most notably Kiner v. Northcutt (1970), Ankeny v. Talbot (1952)
2 federal appellate · 38 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 Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives · Silverstein v. Adams · Hizam v. Blackman · 7 Cal. App. 2d 440 - Chase v. Thomas · Mertens v. Lake Shore Yellow Cab & Transfer 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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * it is certain that when plaintiff looked, the car which struck her was within the scope of her vision whether she saw it or not. To have looked in such a manner as to fail to see what must have been plainly visible was to look without a reasonable degree of care and is of no more effect than if she had not looked at all. Gunby v. Colorado & Southern R. [R.] Co., 77 Colo. 225 , 235 P. 566 ; Nucci v. Colorado & Southern R. Co., 63 Colo. 582 , 169 P. 273 ; Denver City Tramway Co. v. Cobb, 8 Cir., 164 F. 41 , and McLennon v. Whitney-Steen Co., 63 Colo. 568 , 167 P. 771 . See, also, Mertens v. Lakeshore Yellow Cab & Transfer Co., 195 Wis. 646 , 218 N.W. 85 ; Silverstein v. Adams, 134 Wash. 430 , 235 P. 784 , and Chase v. Thomas, 7 Cal.App.2d 440 , 46 P.2d 200 ."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Further, even if some degree of negligence could be attributed to the defendant driver, which, as we have said, we do not believe is warranted, plaintiff’s conduct, viewed either as a violation of defendant’s right-of-way under the ordinance or as the act of one who deliberately steps from a place of safety into the path of danger without giving reasonable heed to the possible consequence of her act, unquestionably made her guilty of contributory negligence and precluded any right of recovery.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dennis v. Johnson
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.