Lanier v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2017
2 federal appellate · 16 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 Hubbard v. Murray · Scott v. Simms · Hooker v. Hancock · Green v. Ruffin · Anderson v. Payne
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The doctrine is not to be allowed to wipe out or supersede the defense of contributory negligence. * * * “It is a rule that must be applied with caution, and its application is not to be extended to become in fact a rule of comparative negligence. * * * “The plaintiff is not entitled to recover under this doctrine on mere preadventure. The burden is on him to show by a preponderance of the evidence that he was in a situation of peril, of which he was unconscious or from which he could not by the exercise of reasonable care extricate himself, and that after his peril was discovered, or ought to have been discovered, the defendant had a last clear chance to save him by the exercise of ordinary care. * * * :“The obligation of observing the last clear ■ chance is . mutual. If the plaintiff had an equal chance with the defendant to avoid the accident, or the last clear chance to do so, the plaintiff cannot recover. * * * “Whether the doctrine applies is to be determined by the facts of the particular case. The defendant’s chance must be the last chance and a clear chance; and if the negligence of the defendant is not the sole proximate cause pf the accident, but the negligence of the plaintiff continues and is also a proximate cause, as distinguished from a remote cause, the defendant is not liable. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Witter v. Henry
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.