Towell v. Staley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 35 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘Whether the driver of the coupe, in this case, was able to observe the cattle truck in her lane of traffic in time to prevent the collision, with the proper exercise of care under all the circumstances, could not be answered as a matter of law, but was a proper question for the jury. To adopt the con tention advocated by appellants as conclusive in every situation where an obstruction unexpectedly appears without warning would result in the erection of a legal monstrosity, the eifects of which would be too terrible to contemplate. Carried to its logical conclusion, that doctrine would mean that a vehicle approaching from an opposite direction could suddenly and without warning turn squarely in front of a car traveling at a' reasonable and proper rate of speed, in its own proper lane, and thereby make the latter guilty of negligence. The contention is untenable.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Drake v. Moore · Deemer v. Reichart

2. ““The rule that one driving an automobile in the nighttime must so operate his car that he may stop it within the range of vision of his headlights is applicable in cases where vehicles or other objects on the highway may be seen by the aid of proper lights; but where an obstruction was of such a character and so placed that a motorist driving his ear properly equipped with lights and brakes, at a moderate speed, is unable to see an obstruction in time to prevent colliding with it, and is otherwise free from negligence, he cannot be held guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Washington v. Good · Grisamore v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

3. ““. . . He next contends that under the circumstances alleged as to the color of the parked truck and the fact he came on it after coming over the crest of a hill, and other allegations, he was not bound by the rule that one operating his vehicle in the nighttime must have it under such control he can stop it within the range of his lights and that the rule does not apply where the obstruction is of such a character and so placed that a driver of a motor vehicle properly equipped with lights and brakes, driven at a reasonable speed, is unable to see the obstruction in time to avoid colliding with it. Hayden v. Jack Cooper Transport Co., 134 Kan. 172 , 5 P. 2d 837 ; Womochil v. List & Clark Construction Co., 135 Kan. 695 , 11 P. 2d 731 ; Deardorf v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 136 Kan. 95 , 12 P. 2d 1103 ; Frakes v. Travelers Mutual Cas. Co., 148 Kan. 637 , 84 P. 2d 871 ; and Towell v. Staley, 161 Kan. 127 , 166 P. 2d 699 , cited by the appellant support the contention as made. . . .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grisamore v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.