Pallini v. Dankowski’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Pangle v. Joyce (1996), Roetenberger v. Christ Hospital (2005)
2 federal appellate · 43 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 Smith v. Flesher · 155 Ohio St. 85 - Erdman v. Mestrovich · 131 Ohio St. 52 - Sheen v. Kubiac · 154 Ohio St. 154 - Bradley v. Mansfield Rapid Transit, Inc. · 138 Ohio St. 81 - Smiley v. Arrow Spring Bed Co.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The word ‘ahead,’ as it appears in Section 4511.21 of the Revised Code, and the word ‘lane,’ as it appears in our decisions on the question, mean to the front of, and within the directional line of travel of, a motorist whose conduct is sought to be brought within the rules’s application.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘ ‘ To comply with the assured-clear-distance-ahead provision of Section 12603, General Code, the driver of a motor vehicle must not operate it at a greater speed than will permit him to bring it to a stop within the distance between his motor vehicle and a discernible object obstructing his path or line of travel, unless such assured clear distance ahead is, without his fault, suddenly cut down or lessened by the entrance within such assured clear distance ahead and into his path or line of travel, of some obstruction which renders him unable, in the exercise of ordinary care, to avoid colliding therewith.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““* * * If all traffic lanes were the exact width of the vehicles moving therein, no problem could result. Since such is not the case, however, a discernible object could be within a motorist’s traffic lane of travel, but not within his directional line of travel, and the statute would have. no application.””
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.