141 Ind. App. 25 - Ewing v. Biddle’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Dellwo v. Pearson · 126 Ind. App. 261 - KINDLER, ETC. v. Edwards · 35 Ill. App. 2d 203 - Betzold v. Erickson · Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. v. Storment · 127 Ind. App. 542 - Ft. Wayne Transit, Inc. v. Shomo, Etc.
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To give legal sanction to the operation of automobiles, bicycles or any other motor driven vehicle by minors or teenagers, with less than ordinary care, for the safety of others, would be impractical as well as dangerous. If the rule were otherwise, a state of uncertainty would result, because then it would be a question for juries and courts to determine whether minors of various ages would be held to a different standard of care than adults and all others. “In this modern day we must take judicial notice of the hazards of traffic, and travelers must not be forced to anticipate conduct other than that expected of all ordinary citizens. It would be impossible to know if all cars, bicycles and other vehicles were operated by adults, a minor twenty years old, fifteen years old or ten years old. Since there is no exception in the statutes which exempts anyone from the provisions thereof, we feel that the law applies equally to all.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Appellants urge in the case at bar, the question of whether or not Richard Paul Ewing exercised reasonable care for his own safety, consideration should be made for his age and experience. We are not saying here that such an instruction would be erroneous but we might say as well that the same standard . . . could be urged in the case of elderly and infirm persons. . . . (W)e find no substantial proof of negligence on the part of the appellee (defendant).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bixenman v. Hall
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.