Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 126 MOAPP 43 - Percell v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.

Percell v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1907

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
November 1932
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently November 1932

6 state decisions

301907191019201930decided

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 Orcutt v. Century Building Co. · Cole v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. · Hamilton v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. · Goodloe v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. · Budd v. Hoffheimer

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

  1. ““With nothing in the appearance of the train to disclose that it was beyond control, and with every reason to think it would stop at the accustomed place, it was not negligence per se for plaintiff, who, under the conditions presumed, had abundant time to clear the crossing, momentarily to withdraw his eyes from the train.””
    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.