Goodman v. Wisby’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Frazier v. Cities Service Oil Co. (1945), Henderson v. National Mutual Casualty Co. (1947)
2 district · 31 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 Sponable v. Thomas · Robinson v. Short · Eldredge v. Sargent · Meneley v. Montgomery · Williams v. Kansas State Highway Commission
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““He deliberately proceeded to travel in this heavy cloud of dust and was still traveling at the rate of forty-five miles per hour when he reached the brow of the hill. His own testimony discloses that on the brow of the hill the entire road was covered with a cloud of dust and the dust continued to thicken. Notwithstanding the fact defendant could not see what was ahead of him, he continued 322 feet further and at a speed of between thirty and forty miles per hour. At that speed he was proceeding blindly. His vision was not suddenly obscured. He knowingly drove blindly at that speed and knowingly exposed himself to the dangers which might lie before him.” (L. c. 345.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““From this record it is obvious defendant knowingly had been traveling in a cloud of dust which completely obscured his vision. It at least so completely obscured his vision that, in view of the speed of his car, he was unable to stop within the range of his vision. The general rule is well established that it is negligence as a matter of law for a motorist to operate his automobile on a highway at such speed that it cannot be stopped within the distance objects can be seen ahead of it. (Chance v. Murry, 143 Kan. 476 , 54 P. 2d 981 ; Berry v. Weeks, 146 Kan. 969, 972 , 73 P. 2d 1086 ; Robinson v. Short, 148 Kan. 134 , 79 P. 2d 903 ; Eldredge v. Sargent, 150 Kan. 824, 832 , 96 P. 2d 870 , and cases therein cited.)” (L. c. 344.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.