Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 Minn. 352 - Medved v. Doolittle

Medved v. Doolittle’s Empirical Analysis

1945

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
5
states following
July 1996
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 8 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently July 1996 · most notably Bonhiver v. Graff (1976), 1 Utah 2d 143 - Hillyard v. Utah By-Products Co. (1953)

6 federal appellate · 8 district · 57 state decisions

220194519501960197019801990decided

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 Kline v. Moyer and Albert · Christensen v. Hennepin Transportation Co. Inc. · Christianson v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Co. · Hubbard v. Murray · Ranum v. Swenson

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

  1. ““Courts generally have held that, where the driver of an automobile colliding with the rear end of another automobile standing on a highway saw the standing one in time to avoid the collision and might have avoided it by the exercise of reasonable care either by stopping his own car or by turning to avoid the standing one, but did not, the negligence, if any, in permitting the car to be standing on the highway is not the proximate cause of the collision, and that the driver’s conduct is a superseding, intervening cause thereof.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““We have not held in any case that there is liability under a similar fact situation. Where we have held the leaving of an automobile or other object on a highway to be the proximate cause of a collision with it by an automobile, the accident occurred at night under circumstances obscuring the view of the driver of the colliding car, such as darkness, fog, mist, rain, smoke, curves, hill, and other factors.””
    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.