Opple v. Ray’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 101 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 43 Cal. 2d 60 - Richards v. Stanley (1954), Mundy v. Pirie-Slaughter Motor Co. (1948)
23 federal appellate · 101 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 96 Ind. App. 71 - Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Huss · 96 Ind. App. 535 - Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Gillespie · Fisher v. Fletcher · City of Indianapolis v. Gaston · Avery v. Dougherty
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In both cases it was held that to drive an automobile at such a speed that it could not be stopped within the distance that objects could be seen ahead of it was contributory negligence as a matter of law, and that the question of proximate cause is not properly submitted to the jury. Many cases from many jurisdictions are cited to support the proposition, but it seems to us that the statement is too broad. ... No negligence on the part of the railroad company was shown in either of the cases, and there was no basis for recovery in any event.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Statutory provision is made for the maintenance of signs at the side of the highway indicating the approach to a railroad crossing. The signs are maintained for the protection of those using the highway. Reasonable prudence requires that one using the highway take care to observe such signs, and take notice of the proximity of a railroad track, which is of itself notice of danger.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““One who is driving on the highway in a reasonably prudent manner has the right to presume that there is no car upon the traveled way in the dark, unlighted; and if he collides with such a car, without notice of its presence, or of facts which would put a reasonably prudent person upon notice of danger, he cannot be charged with negligence contributing toward the collision. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Meyer v. Weimaster
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.