Shedlock v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently October 1999 · most notably Yopps v. State (1962), Harper v. Higgs (1961)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 72 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 Greenfeld v. Hook · Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. Hogeland · Blinder v. Monaghan · Texas Co. v. Washington, Baltimore & Annapolis Electric Railroad · Madge v. Fabrizio
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a driver who enters, from an unfavored highway, an intersection with a favored boulevard or arterial highway where there are no traffic controls must yield the right of way to all the traffic he finds there during the entire time he is there. If he does not, and a collision results, he is at fault, and cannot recover against the other driver_ So far as his rights as a plaintiff are concerned, it makes no difference what the other party does in the first instance. He is negligent because he has not yielded the road. Being negligent himself, his action is barred.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Boodoo v. Cary · Cooper v. Allen“(Vehicle Entering Through Highway or Stop Intersection.) (a) The driver of a vehicle shall come to a full stop as required by this Article at the entrance to a through highway and shall yield the right of way to other vehicles approaching on said through highway.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * from those decisions, it may be definitely stated that for a driver to enter such a boulevard without stopping or, having once stopped, to enter upon the favored highway before yielding the right-of-way to vehicles thereon is an act of negligence on his part, because there is no requirement that the motorist upon the boulevard should slow down at intersections, for the reason that the purpose of the statute is to permit such vehicles to move freely, thus accelerating the flow of traffic over such favored highway; and it may also be said that the driver of a motor vehicle upon the boulevard has a right to assume that those entering thereon will respect the prohibition of the statute. ****** “In view therefore of the mandatory provision of the statute, it would follow that if one drives upon a boulevard and collides with a vehicle lawfully thereon, he himself is negligent, and under such circumstances courts will not be diligent in submitting his case to the consideration of a jury simply because he unsuccessfully attempted to dodge the boulevard vehicle, for plainly to send such a case to the jury, renders the statute meaningless and the result is nothing more than statutory repeal by the judiciary.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gessel v. Smith
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.