Ross v. Fleming’s Empirical Analysis
1948
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 1976 · most notably Ziegelasch v. Durr (1958), Ineas v. Union Pac. R. Co. (1952)
32 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 Horton v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Leinbach v. Pickwick-Greyhound Lines · Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Kansas City, Merriam & Shawnee Railroad · Buchhein v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Walters
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.
““. . . The doctrine of last clear chance is not applicable so long as the plaintiff’s contributory negligence continues. Otherwise stated, there can be no recovery under the doctrine where the negligence of the parties has remained concurrent. [Citations.] The reason for this rule is readily apparent when the question is considered from the standpoint of proximate cause. Approaching the doctrine from that point of view as many, but not all, courts do ( 38 Am. Jur. 902 ), where a plaintiff’s negligence has ceased, it is regarded as remote and the defendant’s negligence which thereafter follows is regarded as the proximate cause of the accident. It is thus clear that if the plaintiff’s negligence has continued until the time of the accident and, without such negligence, the accident would not have occurred, recovery cannot be had. . . .” (p. 286.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A fundamental principle of law is that the last clear chance doctrine is inapplicable where plaintiff’s contributory negligence continues and is not shown to have ceased. As sometimes stated, there can be no recovery under the doctrine where the negligence of the parties has remained concurrent. [Citations.]” (p. 598.)”
2 later decisions 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.