McCallum v. Adkerson’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
26 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Leonard v. Holmes & Barnes, Limited · 96 So. 2d 340 - Maryland Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co. · 99 So. 2d 173 - Paggett v. Travelers Indemnity Company · 111 So. 2d 358 - Service Fire Ins. Co. of NY v. Indiana Lumber. MI Co. · 78 So. 2d 44 - Callia v. Rambin
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is our opinion that plaintiff was negligent in attempting to pass, without giving adequate signals of his intention, at a time when the traffic was decelerating in 'such a manner as to indicate that the lead vehicle was either preparing to turn or experiencing some sort of mechanical difficulty, and in failing to observe and heed the left turn signal given by defendant, which negligence was a proximate cause of the accident.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In the absence of a showing of excessive speed on McCallum's part, there is no acceptable explanation for defendant's admitted failure to see plaintiff's vehicle until after the collision had occurred. The conclusion is inescapable that had defendant looked to the rear immediately prior to beginning his turn he would have observed plaintiff's passing maneuver. We are, therefore, in complete accord with the lower court's finding that defendant was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the accident." 126 So.2d at 837 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"`* * * we hesitate in cases where the last clear chance doctrine is relied upon to relieve a party of his negligent acts except when opportunity presented the other party to avert the accident is manifest.' Id., at page 344. "Inasmuch as the collision occurred almost immediately after the peril could have been first discovered, we do not consider either plaintiff or defendant as having had sufficient opportunity to avert the accident. Consequently, the doctrine is without application."”
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.