Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 Or. 319 - Murphy v. Hawthorne

Murphy v. Hawthorne’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
13
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 48 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably Alabam Freight Lines v. Phoenix Bakery, Inc. (1946), Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Shipp (1927)

4 federal appellate · 48 state decisions — followed in 13 states

1901926193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lauson v. Town of Fond du Lac · Southern Railway v. Kentucky Grocery Co. · Hatch v. Daniels · Hansen v. Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co. · West Construction Co. v. White

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

  1. ““Plaintiff had a right to assume, in the absence of notice to the contrary, that defendant would not put this dusty, gray-colored truck on the highway after dark without displaying a red light on the rear thereof. If the truck had been lighted, the jury might well have drawn the reasonable inference that plaintiff would have been able to avoid striking it.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * But when approaching the truck he could not ruthlessly run into it or run it down simply because it was violating the law, and it would be his duty under such circumstances to use every reasonable effort to avoid colliding with it, and if he did so use every effort and care that a reasonably prudent and careful man would have used under such circumstances, and notwithstanding such effort a collision occurred, the plaintiff would not be liable nor guilty of contributory negligence, notwithstanding the other car was negligently left there. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““This instruction, considered in its entirety, is not objectionable. We take it that it is not necessary to cite authorities to establish the proposition that plaintiff had the right to assume that defendant would obey the law of the road.””
    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.