Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 215 SO2D 367 - Hall v. Jackson

Hall v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
August 1995
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 1995

8 state decisions

301968197019801990decided

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 Crane v. London · Barber v. Sumrall · Laville v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. · 185 So. 2d 820 - Crabtree v. Home Indemnity Co.

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

  1. ““The above provisions merely require a vehicle be equipped with a horn in good working order and that a driver give audible warning when it is reasonably necessary to insure the safe operation of his automobile. There is no duty on the part of an overtaking motorist to sound his horn when there is no apparent necessity to do so. An audible signal is only required when there is not sufficient clearance to pass and to warn the overtaken vehicle that it must give way to the right in order to provide such clearance. The purpose of sounding the horn is not to warn the overtaken vehicle not to turn left. Barber v. Sumrall, 206 So.2d 560 , La.App. 1 Cir. (1968), citing Crane v. London, 152 So.2d 631 , La.App. 2 Cir. (1963). Applying the law to the facts of this case we find plaintiff free from negligence. He was entitled to pass the slow-moving pickup truck to the left as there was no signal indicating its driver intended to turn left, there was no marked intersection at that point and there were no oncoming vehicles on the highway obstructing his passage. We conclude the sole and proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of defendant in turning left into the private drive without first having ascertained that such a maneuver could be made in safety.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A. Every motor vehicle when operated upon a highway of this state shall be equipped with a horn in good working order and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than 200 feet, but no horn or other warning device shall emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or whistle. The driver of a motor vehicle shall, when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation, give audible warning with his horn, but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway of this state.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When reasonably necessary to insure safe operation”
    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.