Pfisterer v. Key’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently August 1996 · most notably 177 Ind. App. 403 - Kroger Co. v. Haun (1978), Nugent v. Quam (1967)
10 federal appellate · 55 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 Martin v. Lilly · Raymond v. Hill · Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Kidd · Indianapolis Street Railway Co. v. Marschke · City of Michigan v. Werner
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally, ‘it is negligence to fail to see or hear that which you could see or hear, by the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care, and for that reason the law attaches the same legal consequences for not seeing or hearing as it does if in fact you did see and hear.’ Pfisterer v. Key, supra (1941), 218 Ind. 521, 529, 530 , 33 N.E.2d 330, 333 . See also: Bellefontaine Railway Company v. Hunter, Administrator (1870), 33 Ind. 335, 360 , 5 Am. Rep. 201 .””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ . . . The warning is for the purpose of giving the pedestrian an opportunity to protect himself. See Croatian Bros. Packing Co. v. Rice (1928), 88 Ind. App. 126 , 147 N. E. 288 . We think it also might be construed as a notice to the pedestrian that the driver intends to use that part of the highway on which the pedestrian is walking. The duty -to slow down is enjoined upon drivers of automobiles, perhaps to the end that the driver may change the course of his automobile in time to avoid a collision, if the pedestrian does not heed the warning.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The duty of a driver of an automobile to discover, pedestrians on the highway, and have his automobile under control so as to avoid collision with them . .. has.no.application to cases where a pedestrian suddenly steps out;- from behind, another car dr other obstruction into the path of an oncoming cari””
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.