Cox v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 1969 · most notably Cox v. Hennis Freight Lines (1952), Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, Inc. (1951)
66 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 Wall v. . Bain · Tyson v. . Ford · Steelman v. . Benfield · Tarrant Ex Rel. Tarrant v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. · Harper v. . Harper and Wickham v. . Harper
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) “No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing. (b) “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, it shall be unlawful to operate a vehicle in excess of the following speeds: (1) Twenty miles per hour in any business district; (2) Thirty-five miles per hour in any residential district; (3) • • • ; (4) Fifty-five miles per hour in places other than those named in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this subsection for passenger cars . . .; (e) “The fact that the speed of a vehicle is lower than the foregoing limits shall not relieve the driver from the duty to decrease speed . . . when special hazard exists with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions, and speed shall be decreased as may be necessary to avoid colliding with any person, vehicle or other conveyance on the highway in compliance with legal requirements and the duty of all persons to use due care.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The driver of an automobile is not required to anticipate negligence on the part of others and his failure to do so does not constitute an act of negligence * * * but he is under the duty to keep a reasonably careful lookout. * * * 'The requirements of a prudent operation are not necessarily satisfied when the defendant “looks” either preceding or during the operation of his car. It is the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle not merely to look, but to keep an outlook in the direction of travel; and he is held to the duty of seeing what he ought to have seen.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Griffin v. Ward“must operate his automobile at night in such manner and at such speed as will enable him to stop within the radius of his lights.”
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.