Hamilton v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 1974 · most notably McCandless v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1960), 50 So. 2d 321 - Gauthier v. Fogleman (1951)
45 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 Taxicab Co. v. Ottenritter · Neumann v. Apter · Simpson v. Pardue · Ford v. Tremont Lumber Co. · Damonte v. Patton
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) vol. 1, § 1049, reads as follows: ‘A driver approaching an intersection saw a machine approaching about 150 feet distant from his right He kept on without again looking, and was almost across the intersection when he was struck by the other car. Held, that he was not contributorily negligent as a matter of law in not looking to the right again after entering the intersection.’ Citing Ellis v. Olson, 139 Wash. 351 , 246 P. 944 . i “Huddy’s Encyclopedia of Automobile Law (9th Ed.) vol. 3-4, p. 230, under the heading ‘Side Lookouts,’ reads in part as follows: ‘He need not, however, look as far as his eye can roach, but only sufficiently far to enable him to discover vehicles within the limit of danger.’ Citing the following ruling from Taxicab Co. v. Ottenritter, 151 Md. 525 , 135 A. 587 , 589: ‘It was not necessary for the plaintiff to look as far as his eye could reach to his right before proceeding across the intersecting street. His duty in that respect was performed if he looked sufficiently far to his right to discover that there was no traffic approaching from that direction within a distance that would not be traversed by a vehicle driven at a speed permitted by the law. He was not required to look always to his right while crossing the street, as he had to avoid endangering travel ahead of him, or approaching from his left’ “Again, Berry on Automobiles (6th Ed.) vol. 1, § 1045, p. 890, says: ‘If the driver who has not the right-of-way, lo”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Haley v. Black““It was therefore not negligence for the driver of plaintiff’s car to attempt to cross the intersection, unless the speed of defendant’s car was known to her, and the distance of defendant’s car from the intersection was so short that a prudent and careful driver should have known of the danger of attempting to cross.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lofton v. Cottingham““However, she would not be justified if she, acting as a reasonable person, would and should have known that the on-coming car was making excessive speed, and she did not have time to get across.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lofton v. Cottingham
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.