Ragland v. Rutledge’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
November 2001
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Weddle, Administratrix v. Draper · Boyd v. Brown · Page v. Arnold · Virginia Transit Company v. Schain
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But where the plaintiff calls a defendant as an adverse witness, the plaintiff is bound by so much of the defendant’s testimony as is clear, reasonable, and uncontradicted. The plaintiff, however, is not bound by such testimony of the defendant as is in conflict with evidence introduced by the plaintiff. Weddle v. Draper, 204 Va. 319, 322 , 130 S.E.2d 462, 465 (1963); Boyd v. Brown, 192 Va. 702, 708 , 66 S.E.2d 559, 563 (1951). In the present case, we are confronted, on the one hand, with the positive testimony of the bus driver that the bus, at all times pertinent to the accident, was wholly within its proper travel lane. We also are faced, on the other hand, with the equally firm testimony of the truck driver, called as an adverse witness, that the truck was entirely in its proper lane of travel at all pertinent times. The plaintiff argues, however, that reasonably to be inferred from the bus driver’s testimony that the bus was in the correct lane, and from the fact that the two vehicles made contact, is the conclusion that the truck was partially in the wrong lane at the time of the accident. This inference drawn from primary facts, the argument continues, is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of negligence and causation. We do not agree. The plaintiff’s argument disregards the effect of the truck driver’s testimony as an adverse witness. As we have said, the plaintiff is bound by so much of the defendant’s testimony as is uncontradicted and not in conflict with ev”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.