Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 NEB 684 - Simonsen v. Thorin

Simonsen v. Thorin’s Empirical Analysis

1931

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
9
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently June 2015

1 federal appellate · 2 district · 19 state decisions

60193119401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Lucas v. St. Louis & Suburban Railway Co. · Kenyon v. State · Keiser v. Decker · McDonald v. Brown

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.

  1. “* * * when one engaged in the lawful use of the highway causes an obstruction to be placed upon it in such a manner as to be dangerous to traffic, he must use ordinary care to prevent injury to others where he knows that said obstruction is calculated to do injury to travelers upon said highway. The negligence in such a case consists of having placed an obstruction upon the street, and leaving it in such a manner as will be dangerous to others using the street.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “They had a positive, continuing duty to the public traveling the street to warn of this danger. The situation in such a case is not unlike that of a private contractor who opens up an excavation in the street, which is a lawful act and done without negligence, but he is required to use ordinary care in preventing injury to others.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Whoever places an obstruction in a public highway, even by an involuntary act and without negligence, is under an obligation to remove such a nuisance from the highway or is required to use ordinary care to warn the traffic on said highway of the dangers incident to said obstruction.”
    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.