Vought v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently December 2008 · most notably Saunders and Rittenhouse v. Bulluck (1968), Thomas v. Settle (1994)
23 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 · Gabbard v. Knight · Crist v. Fitzgerald · Roanoke Railway & Electric Co. v. Whitner
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘We have many times pointed out that the duty and liability of the driver of an automobile to adults and children are measured by different standards. Ordinary care toward an adult under certain circumstances might be gross negligence toward a child under the same conditions. The driver must increase his exertions in order to avoid danger to children whom he may see, or by the exercise of reasonable care should see, on or near the highway.’ (Citing authorities.)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he improper manner in which the bus was stopped on the highway was merely a circumstance, or a remote cause, and that the negligence of the driver of the truck was the intervening and sole proximate cause of the col lision in which Murray was killed. This was so because the later negligence of the truck driver superseded the prior negligence of the driver of the bus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mills v. Mealey“In the present case the manner in which the truck was stopped or parked on the road had not ceased to operate or been superseded by the negligence, if any, of Duncan, but continued down to the time of the accident and proximately contributed thereto. The negligence, if any, of Duncan, the driver of the car, was not a superseding but a concurring cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mills v. Mealey
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.