Olson v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

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

1. ““* * * Both drivers were familiar with the intersection and knew that it was protected against traffic on the town road by a stop sign. The driver upon a highway which he knows to be protected by stop signs may assume, until he sees otherwise, that drivers approaching an intersection so protected will heed the stop sign and not only stop, but look for and yield the right of way to other vehicles which are approaching so closely on the through highway as to constitute an immediate hazard. § 169.20, subd. 3. In short, he may assume ordinary care on the part of such drivers until he observes the contrary. Zickrick v. Strathern, 211 Minn. 329, 332 , 1 N. W. (2d) 134, 136 . As said in that case, the approaching car on the through highway was a very immediate hazard, which the driver on the cross road should have taken time to observe and to which he should have yielded the right of way. Here, plaintiff’s driver, until he saw otherwise, might reasonably assume that defendant would stop, look, and yield the right of way. In the light of the present statute, which differs from previous ones requiring only a stop, we think that plaintiff’s driver, knowing of the stop sign, might have reasonably assumed, notwithstanding he could not see to the east, that he was safe in approaching and driving through the intersection at even 45 or 50 miles an hour. We consider that he was free from negligence as a matter of law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Seivert v. Bass

2. ““ ‘It was not enough to stop at the “Stop” sign. It was his duty to stop and to observe where stopping and observing would be efficient and meet the purpose of the “Stop” warning.’ “* * * it is the duty of one approaching an arterial highway to stop at a point * * * where one may efficiently observe traffic approaching on the arterial highway.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bohnen v. Gorr

3. “* * * By doing so, he violated his duty to stop, look for, and yield the right of way to cars within the zone where they constituted an immediate hazard.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bocchi v. Karnstedt