202 So. 2d 367 - Smith v. Glass’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In the case at hand, Mrs. Glass' automobile was struck while stopped in the neutral ground. Her vehicle was not struck while in motion crossing the path of a vehicle proceeding upon the favored street as in the Brignac [Jenkins v. Brignac, La.App., 146 So.2d 649 ] and Bergeron [Bergeron v. Hetherwick, La.App., 140 So.2d 440 ] cases, supra. At the time her vehicle was struck, Mrs. Glass could do nothing to avoid a collision."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 230 So. 2d 352 - Joseph v. Boudreaux · 218 So. 2d 662 - Allen v. Baucum

2. “"[2, 3] We hold that as a matter of law, it was not negligence on the part of Mrs. Glass to enter the intersection when she did since the record is abundantly clear she did so at a time when it did not impede or interfere with northbound traffic upon Airline Highway. Nor do we find that she was negligent in stopping within the neutral ground under the circumstances existing herein, with two or three feet of her car extending into the inside northbound lane of Airline Highway. "[4, 5] We concur in the view expressed by our brothers of the Fourth Circuit in Garrett v. Toye Brothers Yellow Cab Co., [La.App.] 58 So.2d 418 , wherein they held it is not negligence per se for a motorist crossing a multiple lane highway to traverse one half the roadway and stop in the neutral ground to await passage of traffic on the remaining portion, notwithstanding the neutral ground is not sufficiently wide to permit the crossing motorist to stop without any portion of his vehicle extending into the lanes already traversed. We also share the opinion expressed in the Garrett case, supra, to the effect that all that is required of the crossing motorist under such circumstances is that he exercise reasonable care for his own safety as well as that of other motorists proceeding lawfully upon the highway. What constitutes reasonable care is, of course, a matter to be determined in the light of the circumstances of each particular case. "[6] In the instant case weather conditions were favorable, northb”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 218 So. 2d 662 - Allen v. Baucum