14 Wash. App. 946 - Rhoades v. DeRosier’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2006 · most notably 120 Wash. 2d 246 - Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co. (1992), Nehls v. Leonard (1981)
36 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 Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Black Hills v. Hubbard · 84 Wash. 2d 959 - Godfrey v. Washington · 85 Wash. 2d 911 - Shelby v. Keck · 12 Wash. App. 500 - Ryan v. Westgard · 41 Wash. 2d 775 - Miller v. Cody
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile instructions to which no exception is taken become the law of the case, the doctrine does not bar review of the granting or denial of a directed verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A following driver, however, is not negligent as a matter of law simply because the preceding vehicle has been struck from the rear. The preceding driver may not act in an unusual, unexpected manner that reasonably could not be anticipated. Such conduct by a preceding driver may preclude finding'the following driver negligent as a matter of law. Vanderhoff v. Fitzgerald, 72 Wash.2d 103 , 431 P.2d 969 (1967); James v. Niebuhr, 63 Wash.2d 800 , 389 P.2d 287 (1964); Ryan v. Westgard, 12 Wash.App. 500 , 530 P.2d 687 (1975). If substantial evidence suggests unusual conduct by the preceding driver which should not have been anticipated, then the negligence of the following driver and the contributory negligence of the preceding driver are questions of fact. It is for the jury to decide whether the circumstances were such that a sudden stop was to be anticipated. It is also for the jury to decide from the evidence whether negligence on the part of the preceding driver proximately contributed to the injury. Bonica v. Gracias, supra; Amon v. Lockett, supra 66 Wash.2d at 7, 400 P.2d 784 ; Ryan v. Westgard, supra.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kahler v. Martin“If substantial evidence suggests unusual conduct by the preceding driver which should not have been anticipated, then the negligence of the following driver and the contributory negligence of the preceding driver are questions of fact. It is for the jury to decide whether the circumstances were such that a sudden stop was to be anticipated. It is also for the jury to decide from the evidence whether negligence on the part of the preceding driver proximately contributed to the injury.”
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.