Rottman v. Beverly’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 374 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 424 later decisions — most recently October 1992 · most notably Jackson v. Cook (1938), Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1978)
40 federal appellate · 374 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 Woloszynowski v. N.Y.C.R.R. Co. · Harrison v. Louisiana Western R. · Castile v. O'Keefe · Jarrow v. City of New Orleans · Rottman v. Beverly
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 424 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`If the defendant fails to perform that duty, his negligence in that respect is regarded as the proximate and immediate cause of the injury and the negligence of the plaintiff in putting himself in a place of danger, the remote cause. In such cases the last clear chance doctrine applies even though plaintiff's negligence continues up to the accident.'”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“' “In cases of discovered peril, it is pertinent and material to ascertain whether the defendant could, after discovering plaintiff’s peril, have averted the accident by the exercise of due diligence. If he could have averted the accident by the exercise of due diligence and failed to do so, his negligence in that respect is considered the proximate and immediate cause of the injury, and the plaintiff’s negligence the remote cause, and the plaintiff may recover although his negligence continued to the instant of the accident. The basis of recovery in such cases is the defendant’s superior knowledge of the peril and his ability to avoid the injury. He has the last clear chance. 20 R.C.L. § 116, page 141. “Of course, there can be no recovery against defendant if he used due care in discovering the peril and after discovering it could not avoid the accident, as in such case there would be no negligence at all on the part of the defendant.’’”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is frequently stated by courts that there can be no recovery in negligence cases ‘where it appears that the negligence of the plaintiff continued until the moment of the accident,’ but that is not a correct statement of the rule. Thus broadly stated, it is misleading, for it is not true in a strict legal sense that a plaintiff is barred from recovery under any and all circumstances merely because he was guilty of negligence which continued down to the moment of the accident which caused his injury, and this court has never so held.””
4 later decisions 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.