Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 Okla. 18 - Smith v. Clark

Smith v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

1926

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
July 1968
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 1968 · most notably City of Tulsa v. Harman (1931), Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Phillips (1932)

2 federal appellate · 42 state decisions

24019261930194019501960decided

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 Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Wainscott · Schaff v. Edwards · Watkins v. Byrnes

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

  1. ““A driver of an automobile on a public road, upon approaching another automobile from the rear, must look out for the man ahead and must have his machine well in hand to avoid injuring the car ahead, so long as the man ahead is driving in accordance with his rights.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““There is no special statute law of this state requiring a driver of a motor vehicle to give a signal or warning to the driver of a car approaching- from the rear, on. a public highway, and the only statute regulating driving and operating motor vehicles is found in section 2, chap. 16, page 21, Sess. Laws 1923, which requires that the vehicle should be driven in a careful and prudent manner and at an ordinary rate of speed, having due regard for the traffic and use of the highway and for the safety of pedestrians or property and drivers or operators of other vehicles, and that he shall not drive such vehicle at a rate of speed in excess of 35 miles an hour and in certain places not more than 15 miles an hour. * * *””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““A demurrer to plaintiff’s evidence in a personal injury action ought to be sustained, unless it is reasonably apparent that The injury suffered by the plaintiff is the causal effect from some wrongful act of the defendant, in violation of a legal duty owing to the plaintiff.””
    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.