Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 SW2D 556 - Sturtevant v. Pagel

Sturtevant v. Pagel’s Empirical Analysis

1937

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
May 1987
most recently cited

1 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1987

1 district · 9 state decisions

30193719401950196019701980decided

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 Trice v. Bridgewater · Foster v. Farra · Bluth v. Neeson · Rocha v. Garcia · Tannahill v. Depositors Oil & Gas 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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The jury found in answer to special issue No. 9, that Junior was negligent in failing to warn Snyder to operate the car at a lower rate of speed. However, the evidence shows that Junior was asleep on the back seat, and never awoke until after Snyder had discovered the approach of the car, and had begun to use the means at hand to avoid the collision, and under such facts Junior could not be guilty of negligence in failing to warn Snyder. Furthermore, his failure to give such warning could not have been a proximate cause of the collision.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “We have concluded, however, that the judgment against Junior (Sturtevant) must be reversed. Junior cannot be held liable on the theory that A. A. Snyder, Jr., who was driving at the time of the accident, was the agent of Junior, because a minor cannot be held on the doctrine of agency, as agency can only be created by contract, and a minor is originally not bound by his contract.”
    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.