Jackson v. Cook’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 445 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 496 later decisions — most recently January 1994 · most notably Baumgartner v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1978), Bergeron v. Department of Highways (1952)
34 federal appellate · 445 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 Rottman v. Beverly · Harrison v. Louisiana Western R. · Burvant v. Wolfe · Tyer v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. · Jarrow v. City of New Orleans
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 496 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" * * * In the present case the plaintiff was guilty of gross negligence which continued up to the moment of the accident. The driver of the car did not see, but could have seen, plaintiff in his peril if he had been looking ahead. The mere fact that the driver of the car in this case did not see plaintiff does not absolve the defendant from liability because it was the duty of the driver to look, and, according to the findings of both courts, he was not looking * * * ””
10 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * that the duty of those in charge of motor cars and engines to look ahead and observe never ceases; that what they can see they must see and in legal contemplation they do see; that their failure to see what they could have seen by the exercise of due diligence does not absolve them from liability.”
7 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.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clark v. De Beer
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.