Angell v. Hester’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently July 1980 · most notably Kirkendoll v. Neustrom (1967), Lafferty v. Wattle (1961)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 29 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 Kendrick v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad · Nicholas v. Latham · Ehrsam v. Borgen · Taylor v. State Highway Commission · Schroeder v. Texas 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The appellant contends that the prohibition against slow-moving traffic is intended to apply only when there may be vehicles approaching from the opposite direction. Thus, the argument is that since no traffic was shown to have been approaching the Roberts automobile in the opposite lane of traffic, there was no evidence upon which a finding could be made that the statute had been violated and no instruction on that phase of the case should have been given. Clearly, there is no provision in the statute which limits its application only to situations where traffic is approaching from the opposite direction. "A vehicle being operated at a subnormal speed may very well create a hazard upon a highway designed and customarily used to carry fast-moving traffic, even though no vehicle may be approaching upon the road from the opposite direction so as to prevent a passing of the slow-moving vehicle overtaken. Distances are deceptive at high speeds and mental calculations of braking distances and stopping times are apt to prove faulty at such higher velocities. This is not to say that one who miscalculates in such matters may not be guilty of negligence in so doing. It is but the recognition of human frailties in such regards that might well have impelled the legislature to enjoin any slow-moving traffic which would result in hazard to life, limb or property, regardless of whether the traffic it impedes be approaching from the front or rear, or from both directions."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An order of the trial court granting a new trial sets aside the verdict and the answers to all special questions and the case stands for trial upon the issues made by the pleadings.” (Syl. f 8.)”
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.