Doyle v. Nelson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The driver does not testify, either on direct or cross examination, that he sounded his horn as he approached the intersection, hence we assume that he did not; therefore, we find that the driver proceeded down Samford Avenue with a heavily loaded truck, driving 15 miles per hour, and approached a blind intersection of two streets in a thickly populated residential section of the City of Shreveport with a play ground to the left where children were playing ball, two children on the right on the sidewalk and the deceased on a bicycle on Wilkinson approaching Samford Avenue, and the driver not seeing any of the children, playing near by on one side of the street and the two on the other side of the street without sounding his horn or giving any warning whatever of his approach, or slackening his speed to the minimum as he approached the blind intersection. "We think the law is well settled that the driver of an automobile or truck is held to have seen what he was able to see and should have seen. "We think the law is further well settled that a driver of a vehicle in a populated section of a City is bound to anticipate the presence of children along the streets; "That where children are on the sidewalk and corners, it is the duty of a motorist to drive his machine at such rate of speed as will give him control thereof in an emergency.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bechtold v. Commercial Standard Ins. Co.

2. “The degree of care exacted of a motorist who observes children, especially those of tender age, upon or beside a street or highway upon which he is traveling, to the end that, regardless of childish imprudence and propensities no harm will befall them because of the car's operation, is of the highest. He, in such circumstances, has not the right to assume that such children will act prudently and govern their movements by the same or near the same caution, as an adult would do. Rather, he should assume, out of an abundance of caution, that they will not act prudently.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Herman J. Daigle and Hazel M. Clement, His Wife v. Louisiana Power & Light Company