Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 NEB 283 - Hamblen v. Steckley

Hamblen v. Steckley’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
April 1972
most recently cited

41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 1972 · most notably Bartek v. Glasers Provisions Co. (1955), Styskal v. Brickey (1954)

41 state decisions

2901947195019601970decided

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 Landrum v. Roddy · Fulcher v. Ike · Morris v. Erskine · Belik v. Warsocki · Gleason v. Baack

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

  1. ““Ordinarily, the guest passenger in an automobile has a right to assume that the driver is a reasonably safe and careful driver; and the duty to warn him does not arise until some fact or situation out of the usual and ordinary is presented.” Lewis v. Rapid Transit Lines, 126 Neb. 158 , 252 N. W. 804 . See, also, Hamblen v. Steckley, 148 Neb. 283 , 27 N. W. 2d 178 . “The duty of a guest riding in an automobile is to use care in keeping a lookout commensurate with that of an ordinarily prudent person under like circumstances. The guest is not required to use the same degree of care as devolves upon the driver. If the guest perceives danger, or if at certain times and places should anticipate danger, he should warn the driver. Ordinarily the guest need not watch the road or advise the driver in the management of the automobile.” Styskal v. Brickey, supra. See, also, Kuska v. Nichols Construction Co., supra.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Ordinarily the guest passenger in an automobile has a right to assume that the driver is a reasonably safe and careful; driver; and the duty to warn him does not arise until some fact or situation out of the usual and ordinary is presented.”
    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.