Ehlinger v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2012
2 federal appellate · 19 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 Schmitt v. Jenkins Truck Lines, Inc. · Hampton v. State Highway Commission · Hanson v. Town & Country Shopping Center, Inc. · Frantz v. Knights of Columbus · Stanley Ex Rel. Stanley v. State
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.
“There is no requirement such loss need be measured in a vacuum: ordinarily considered are plaintiff’s poor health, education, and opportunity for education, age, intelligence, industriousness, manner of living, sobriety or temperance, frugality or lavishness or other personal characteristics which affect ability to secure business or earn money.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““This statute requires the city to exercise reasonable and ordinary care to maintain its streets in a safe condition for travel in the usual and ordinary modes of travel. However, a city is not required to keep its streets in a condition of absolute safety. It is only required to use ordinary and reasonable care to that end. It does not insure the safety of travelers upon its streets, nor is it required to foresee and provide against every possible accident. It must have actual notice of the dangerous condition of a street, or the condition must have existed for a sufficient time to enable the city to discover and repair the same, in the exercise of reasonable and ordinary care and dili gence.” — Abraham v. Sioux City, 218 Iowa 1068, 1070 , 250 N.W. 461, 462 (1933)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Koehler v. State“[a] passenger in an automobile is not under an absolute duty to see an impending danger in time to interfere and prevent it. Within reasonable limits [a passenger has] a right to rely on the skill and judgment of the driver. [A passenger is] not required to exercise the same degree of vigilance in looking and listening required of the driver.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Peters v. Howser
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.