Willbanks v. Laster’s Empirical Analysis
1947
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently June 1975
6 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 Oviatt, Administrator v. Garretson · Arkansas Valley Cooperative Rural Electric Co. v. Elkins · Leclair v. Boudreau
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The defense of contributory negligence is based first upon the admission of appellee that she was not keeping a lookout, and did not warn her husband that he was ignoring the stop sign. While both the driver of a car and his guest are alike under the duty of exercising ordinary care, the conduct required to comply with that duty is ordinarily different because of the difference in the circumstances. The subject is extensively annotated in the case of Leclair v. Boudreau, 101 Vt. 270 , 143 A. 401 , 63 A.L.R. 1427 . In the case of Arkansas Valley Co-op. Rural Elec. Co. v. Elkins, 200 Ark. 883 , 141 S.W.2d 538, 542 , we quoted with approval the following statement from 5 Am.Jur., sec. 475, p. 769: ‘A person riding in an automobile driven by another, even though generally not chargeable with the driver’s negligence, is not absolved from all personal care for his own safety, but is under the duty of exercising reasonable care to avoid injury. The care exacted is that which an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under like circumstances. The law fixes no different standard of duty for a passenger in an automobile than for the driver. Each is bound to use reasonable care. What conduct on the passenger’s part is necessary to comply with this duty must depend upon all the circumstances, one of which — and unquestionably an important one — is that he is merely a passenger having no control over the management of the vehicle in which he is riding.’ ” See, also, Stockton v. Baker (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.