130 Ill. App. 3d 1067 - Bouhl v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently March 2008
13 state decisions
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 37 Ill. 2d 494 - Pedrick v. Peoria & Eastern Railroad · 58 Cal. 2d 35 - Torres v. City of Los Angeles · 37 Ill. 2d 596 - Calvetti v. Seipp · 37 Ill. 2d 240 - Sughero v. Jewel Tea Co. · Rutherford v. State
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We hold that under the circumstances here presented, the defendant has failed to carry his burden of proving that his vehicle was under sufficient control to proceed in the left-hand lane with due regard for the safety of others. Neither the presence of the unknown motorist, nor the existing weather and road conditions, nor the emergency to which Smith was responding provides an adequate explanation or excuse for the defendant's failure to maintain control of his squad car so as to avoid colliding with the plaintiffs truck. Where, as here, it is clearly established that the plaintiff performed no act or omission which could in any way be considered negligent, and the perilous situation which led to the accident was a creation of the defendant emergency vehicle operator's own negligence, then the defendant must be found negligent.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * The question of negligence is measured by what a reasonable, prudent, emergency vehicle driver would do under all of the circumstances, including that of the emergency.’ [Citations omitted] * °”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““§11 — 907. Operations of vehicles and streetcars on approach of authorized emergency vehicles. (b) This section shall not operate to reheve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Davis v. State
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.