Johnston, Administratrix v. Ecord’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently October 2009 · most notably Fisher v. Mr. Harold's Hair Lab, Inc. (1974), Armstrong v. Cities Service Gas Co. (1972)
34 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 Ryan v. Griffin · Curtiss v. Fahle · Johnson v. Hill · Casement v. Gearhart · Krentz v. Haney
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(c) No person shall stop or suddenly decrease tire speed of a vehicle without first giving an appropriate signal in the manner provided herein to the driver of any vehicle immediately to the rear when there is opportunity to give such signal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baze v. Groff · Atkins v. Bayer““We therefore hold that when a driver is unexpectedly confronted with an animal on the highway, and a rear-end collision occurs as a result of his making a sudden stop to avoid striking the animal, it is a fact question for the jury as to whether the driver acted with reasonable care and prudence. In making its determination the jury should consider all of the surrounding circumstances, including the size of the animal and the likelihood of injury to the driver and passengers, or persons in a following vehicle, resulting from a collision with the animal, weighed against the possibility of injury which might occur from a sudden stop or from other evasive action to avoid the animal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sannes v. Olds““The policy of the law has relegated the determination of this [reasonably careful person standard] to the jury, to note the special circumstances of each particular case and then say whether the conduct is such as would be expected of a reasonably careful person under a similar state of affairs. Only when the facts are such that reasonable men must draw the same conclusion from them does the question of negligence become one of law for the court." (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Deal v. Bowman
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.