Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 212 VA 820 - Smith v. Lámar

Smith v. Lámar’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
July 2002
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently July 2002

15 state decisions

801972198019902000decided

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 Perlin v. Chappell · Virginia Transit Co. v. Tidd · McKay v. Hargis · Scogin v. Nugen · Yates v. Potts

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

  1. “1. Disregard speed limits, while having due regard for safety of persons and property; 2. Proceed past any steady or flashing red signal, traffic light, stop sign, or device indicating moving traffic shall stop if the speed of the vehicle is sufficiently reduced to enable it to pass a signal, traffic light, or device with due regard to the safety of persons and property; 3. Park or stop ...; 4. Disregard regulations governing a direction of movement of vehicles turning in specified directions so long as the operator does not endanger life or property; 5. Pass or overtake, with due regard to the safety of persons and property, another vehicle at any intersection; 6. Pass or overtake with due regard to the safety of persons and property, while en route to an emergency, other stopped or slow-moving vehicles, by going off the paved or main traveled portion of the roadway on the right.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The standard of care which would customarily be required of the ordinary motorist ... does not apply to [the police officer]. He was a police officer in hot pursuit of a law violator, and was operating his vehicle under certain conditions prescribed by law. The standard of care exacted of him is “the standard of care of a prudent man in the discharge of official duties of a like nature under the circumstances”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Nothing in this section shall be construed to release the operator of any such vehicle from civil liability for failure to use reasonable care in such operation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.