Wiley v. Sutphin’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 2018
23 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 State v. Vinzant · Snodgrass v. Centanni · Brown v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company · Hollabaugh-Seale Funeral Home, Inc. v. Standard Acc. Ins. · Roder v. Legendre
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Negligence is a want of ordinary or reasonable care, which should be exercised by a person of ordinary prudence under all the circumstances in view of the probable danger of injury; and ordinary, reasonable or due care is that degree of care, which, under the same or similar circumstances, would ordinarily or usually be exercised by, or might reasonably be expected from, an ordinarily prudent person. Brown v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co., 234 La. 860 , 101 So.2d 696 ; State v. Vinzant, 200 La. 301 , 7 So.2d 917, 922 ; Roder v. Legendre, 147 La. 295 , 84 So. 787 ; Neyrey v. Maillet, La. App., 21 So.2d 168 ; Frazier v. Ayres, La.App., 20 So.2d 754 ; Gunn v. Saenger-Ehrlich Enterprises, Inc., La.App., 192 So. 744 ; Flotte v. Thomas Egan's Sons, Inc., 18 La.App. 116 , 134 So. 428 ; 65 C.J.S. Negligence § 11, p. 387."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“"While it is true that the speed limitations as prescribed in the Highway Regulatory Act, LSA-R.S. 32:1 et seq., do not apply to police vehicles, fire engines or ambulances operated in emergencies and with due care, the owner or operator of such vehicles is not relieved from the consequences of his non-observance of traffic conditions and otherwise reckless disregard of the safety of others. LSA-R.S. 32:230; Pine v. Edmonds, La.App., 73 So.2d 318 ; Calvert Fire Ins. Co. v. Hall Funeral Home, La.App., 68 So.2d 626, 629 ." * * * * * * "The duty of a motorist to be ever observant and constantly on the alert applies to the operation of emergency vehicles, and very appropriately so, in that such vehicles are permitted to operate beyond usual speed limitations and in disregard of the usual traffic signals. Privileges accorded drivers in the operation of vehicles in emergencies do not authorize one to drive helter-skelter without making, at least, a casual observation or without keeping his vehicle under some degree of control."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The law does not exact the doing of the impossible, or that, in attempting the impossible, a person be exposed to greater danger.”
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.