146 Ind. App. 465 - Davis v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co v. Croly · 131 Ind. App. 422 - LEE, ETC. v. Dickerson · 145 Ind. App. 278 - National City Lines, Inc. v. Hurst · 86 Ind. App. 270 - Heldt v. Thompson · 141 Ind. App. 25 - Ewing v. Biddle
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Our most recent statement and application of the doctrine of ‘last clear chance’ is found in the case of National City Lines, Inc. v. Hurst (1969), 145 Ind. App. 278 , [ 18 Ind. Dec. 420 ], 250 N. E. 2d 507 (Transfer denied). In reviewing prior applications of the doctrine, Judge Hoffman noted that ‘[t]he limits of the doctrine are narrow, and this is as it should be.’ In further emphasizing the prescribed limits of the doctrine, the Court quoted from Indianapolis Traction, etc. Co. v. Croly (1913), 54 Ind. App. 566, 587 , 96 N. E. 973, 981 (Transfer denied), as follows: ‘ . . . their chances are equal; but the motorman (defendant) actually possesses the knowledge of the danger and appreciates the necessity of taking steps to avoid the injury, while the person injured has no actual knowledge of his danger, and does not appreciate the necessity of taking steps to avoid it.’ The present application of the doctrine, as prescribed by National City Lines, Inc. v. Hurst, supra, is limited in scope to those situations evidencing the following state of facts as set forth at [page 424 of 18 Ind. Dec.] page 510 of 250 N. E. 2d: ‘1) The defendant had actual knowledge of the plaintiff; 2) The defendant knew of the plaintiff’s perilous position; 3) The defendant had physical control over the instrumentality and had the last opportunity through the exercise of reasonable care to avoid the injury; and 4) The plaintiff was oblivious to his own danger, notwithstanding his own contributory ne”
2 later decisions 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.