Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 N.C. 643 - Hawes v. Atlantic Refining Co.

Hawes v. Atlantic Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
May 2003
most recently cited

54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently May 2003 · most notably Badders v. Lassiter (1954), State v. Norris (1955)

54 state decisions

230195319601970198019902000decided

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 State v. . Gardner · Matheny v. Central Motor Lines, Inc. · Cox v. Lee · Tarrant Ex Rel. Tarrant v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. · Cooley v. Baker

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

  1. “. .the operator of an automobile, traveling upon a designated main traveled or through highway and approaching an intersecting highway, is under no duty to anticipate that the operator of an automobile approaching on such intersecting highway will fail to stop as required by the statute, and, in the absence of anything which gives or should give notice to the contrary, he will be entitled to assume and to act upon the assumption, even to the last moment, that the operator of the automobile on the intersecting highway will act in obedience to the statute, and stop before entering such designated highway.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[A]pplying mathematics to the rate of speed at which the evidence of plaintiff tends to show the two automobiles were traveling, it is not unreasonable to infer that while plaintiff’s automobile was starting and traveling ten feet or more, the automobile of defendant could come from beyond the range of vision of one stopping at the intersection, whereas if traveling at a prudent rate of speed it would not be expected to do so. In other words, the case does not come within the purview of those cases where the evidence tends to show that the driver failed to see what was in clear view.”
    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.