Sullins v. Pace’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. ““The facts show that collision occurred on a paved street in the City of Dallas, in the daytime, about 7:15 A.M. Appellée testified that as he was approaching an intersecting street in his automobile, he saw, in front of him, about two blocks away, a line of automobiles stopped, waiting to cross the intersection; that, when he saw the line of cars, he began to slow down, gradually came to a full stop at the back end of the line of cars; that prior to and when making the stop, he gave the hand-stop-signal by extending his left arm out the window and downward; that after coming to a complete stop, he saw, at least a block behind him, the defendant’s- automobile through the rear view mirror in his car; and that, in about six or more seconds thereafter, the defendant’s automobile came up, ran into the rear of his car, resulting in injury to him and damage to his automobile. Appellee’s testimony was substantially corroborated by a Mr. Tanner who, at time of the collision, was sitting in the back seat of appellee’s automobile.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyree v. Dunn

2. ““(3-) Appellant Sullins, the sole witness for himself, testified ‘that he was following two or three hundred yards behind plaintiff at the time and on the occasion above, at a speed of thirty miles per hour. That he could see plaintiff’s automobile at all times, that he could see the line of cars stopped in the street ahead of plaintiff for at least one block away, that plaintiff came to a sudden stop in front of him, that he did not see plaintiff give any hand signal, that he put his foot on the brake pedal immediately before the collision, but not in time for the brakes to catch hold, and that he ran into the rear of plaintiff’s stopped automobile at thirty miles per hour, the same speed at which defendant had theretofore been traveling.’ We think that this evidence does not raise the issue of ‘unavoidable accident’ or present a ‘new independent cause’; and that the erroneous submission of ‘unavoidable accident’, and the failure of the court to define the term ‘new independent cause,’ show no reversible error.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyree v. Dunn