Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 244 Mich. 511 - Grodi v. Mierow

Grodi v. Mierow’s Empirical Analysis

1928

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
2
states following
October 1948
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Smith v. Ormiston · Geeck v. Luckenbill · Harris v. Bernstein · Brown v. Mitts

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

  1. ““He was not bound by law to anticipate that defendant would invade that part of the intersection where he had a right to be and defendant had not, nor did the testimony conclusively establish that a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated it. Whether, under the circumstances, plaintiff should have foreseen such invasion, or other violations of traffic law of which defendant was guilty, was for the jury.” . '”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The case is distinguishable from the first two cited, in that plaintiff here saw defendant approaching, arrived at the crossing with his car under control, and there formed a judgment that he could safely proceed at the reduced rate.””
    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.