Hart v. Grim’s Empirical Analysis
179 F.2d 334 · 1950
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently July 2008
7 federal appellate · 2 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 Black, Sivalls & Bryson, Inc. v. Shondell · Harnik v. Lilley · Nordby v. Sorlie
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In support of his contention that the giving of this instruction was reversible error, defendant cites the case of Nordby v. Sorlie, 35 N.D. 395 , 160 N.W. 70 , L.R.A.1917B, 753. In that case the court held that the fact that the defendant was upon the wrong side of the highway was not, standing alone, sufficient to give rise to an assumption of negligence, and it is argued that the proof of the violation of traffic regulations is not absolute proof of negligence. We think counsel have misconstrued the court’s instruction. The conclusion of negligence is not based alone upon the fact that the defendant may have been driving on the wrong side of the highway, but the jury was told in effect that if they found that the vehicle was being driven on the wrong side of the highway ‘while traveling on an upgrade where the vision is bound to be obscured,’ then this would be negligence. Under the undisputed evidence the driver of the defendant’s truck was on the wrong side of the road while he was going uphill and while he was unable to see ahead of him farther than the brow of the hill. * * * “The rule seems to be well stated in 4 Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, 4, § 2681, page 168, where it is said, ‘ * * * The rule supported by the great weight of authority is that a violation of traffic regulations of state or municipality so far as they embody express commands governing the use of vehicles is negligence per se, which, if the proximate cause of the injury co”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Greene v. Werven
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.