Crunkilton v. Hook’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
75 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably Sun Cab Company, Inc. v. Cusick (1956), Brooks v. Lewin Realty III, Inc. (2003)
75 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 Merrifield v. C. Hoffberger Co. · Taxicab Co. of Balto. v. Emanuel · Legum v. State Ex Rel. Moran · Mahan v. State Ex Rel. Carr · Friedman v. Hendler Creamery 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is sufficient evidence to warrant the court in submitting the case to the jury on the question of the [defendant's] negligence,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A pedestrian who exercises due care while using a highway is not required to be constantly anticipating that the law will be violated. Merely because a pedestrian, in a suit for damages for injuries received from an automobile, could have avoided the accident, it does not follow that he is guilty of contributory negli- ■ gence; to establish contributory negligence in such a case, it must be shown that the pedestrian knew of the car’s approach, or by the use of reasonable care would have known of it, in time sufficient to avoid the accident. Taxicab Co. v. Emanuel, 125 Md. 246 , 93 A. 807 . Highways are for the use of everybody as avenues of communication, and no one is barred from using them by reason of his age or physical condition. Any one who uses a highway is entitled to expect that other users will exercise ordinary care to avoid causing him injury. Mahan v. State, to Use of Carr, 172 Md. 373, 384 , 191 A. 575 .” Id. at 8. (emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Reid v. Pegg““The degree of care required of a pedestrian to entitle him to recover is such as would be reasonably expected from an ordinarily prudent person under the circumstances. Even though he may have been guilty of some want of caution, yet if he exercised ordinary care he may still be entitled to recover for injuries sustained as the result of the defendant’s negligence.””
1 later decision 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.