147 So. 2d 407 - Parker v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A motorist has a right to assume that the driver of a vehicle coming from the opposite direction will obey the law, and to act upon such assumption in determining his own manner of using the road. A driver, therefore, proceeding on the right side of the traveled way, may assume that the driver of a vehicle approaching on the same side, or on his left-hand side, will do all that a reasonably prudent person, under all the circumstances, would do to avoid a collision, which ordinarily would be to yield half the way, or to turn out in time to avoid a collision, and that such driver will not force him, in violation of the statute or ordinance, or the law of the road, to turn from the part of the road on which he is lawfully driving. “Likewise, a motorist on the right side of the road and traveling in a lawful mariner can assume that one approaching in the opposite direction will control his car in obedience to the law of the road and will not suddenly turn across his path. “These assumptions may not be indulged in, however, after he sees or ought to see, from the situation of the cars or highway or the conduct of the approaching driver, that they are unwarranted. In other words, the duty of an automobile driver, who is on the right side of the street, to stop or take other precautions to avoid a collision with an approaching vehicle, only arises when by due care he discovers that another on the wrong side of the street cannot or will not himself turn to the right to clear his way”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Patterson v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance

2. ““It was stipulated between plaintiffs’ counsel and defendants’ counsel that if the plaintiff, Clayton Miller was entitled to recover on the merits of the case, that he should have judgment for medical expenses, including doctor bills, hospital bills and ambulance service in the amount of $310.50, and property damages to his automobile in the amount of $2,625. “Accordingly, plaintiffs, Clayton Miller and Mrs. Pauline Miller, jointly, shall recover and shall have judgment, in solido, for aforementioned amounts against Arthur O. Smith and Firemen’s Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, together with legal interest thereon from date of judicial demand until paid. “Plaintiff, Mrs. Pauline Miller, seeks to recover damages for certain alleged injuries which she itemized as being: 1. A severe contusion and concussion of the brain; 3. fracture of the right patella; 3. lacerations of both knees; 4. minor lacerations around the head, face and scalp; S. general bruises and contusions of the head, arms, chest and other portions of her body; and 6. severe shock “A report of Dr. H. L. Cohenour of Shreveport, who was the physician who treated Mrs. Miller upon her admission to the hospital following the accident, was filed in evidence in lieu of his deposition. This doctor stated that Mrs. Miller was dazed but not unconscious ; that she was in a very nervous condition and upset emotionally. He found fragments of glass in exposed areas, contusions of both knees, a laceration of one knee, an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Miller v. Firemen's Insurance Co. of Newark

3. “"Considering first the claim for `loss of a reasonably anticipated inheritance from the efforts of his deceased mother for the remainder of her life expectancy.' Without entering into any discussion of whether or not this is a recoverable item of damages, suffice it to say that the record is barren of any evidence whatever on which an award of this type could be made. The only evidence before the court that might be considered is the amount of average total income of the community during the past ten years. The percentage of contribution through the deceased's effort is of no consequence. Further, income alone does not indicate the potential net worth of a person at death. A person might well earn any amount of annual income and yet at death leave nothing as an inheritance for his or her children. This claim is denied. "Considering the relationship that existed between plaintiff and his mother and the closeness of the family relationships, the natural love and affection which he had for his mother, the suddenness and unexpectedness of her passing, the diminished value of the present dollar, the court is of the opinion that plaintiff should be awarded the sum of $7,500 for the loss of love and companionship of his mother. "Therefore, there is judgment herein in favor of John Charles Parker, plaintiff, and against Arthur O. Smith, Unity Life Insurance Company, and Firemen's Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey, in solido, in and for the full sum of $2,080.31, together with l”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 147 So. 2d 414 - Parker v. Smith