Gore v. Patrick’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably 658 So. 2d 1352 - Peoples Bank and Trust Company v. Cermack (1995), 209 So. 2d 193 - Rayborn v. Freeman (1968)
28 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 Meridian City Lines v. Baker · Hines v. McCullers · Teche Lines, Inc. v. Danforth · RAWLINGS v. Royals · Yazoo & M. V. R. v. Cornelius
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The Court instructs the jury for the Plaintiff, Milton Blair, that the driver of an antomobile or truck must have his vehicle under such reasonable control as would enable him to avoid an accident which might have been reasonably foreseen by the exercise of ordinary care; and if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant, Mario S. Critelli, could have reasonably foreseen the occcurrence of the accident haere (sic) complained of and could have avoided the accident had Mario S. Critelli, exercised reasonable and ordinary care in keeping a lookout for other vehicles, and that such failure, if any, was a proximate or contributing cause of the accident, then it is your sworn duty to find for the Plaintiff, as against Mario S. Critelli, Defendant.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We are of the opinion that an intersection that is not marked by signs and which would not be observed by a reasonable careful operator of a motor vehicle is not an intersection within the meaning of the statute. Any other interpretation of the statute would not be sensible nor, would it be practical to obey. It would not be reasonable to require a motorist to observe this statute in respect to intersections which are not marked by signs or observable by the operator of a vehicle in the exercise of reasonable care. ( 246 Miss. at 721, 722 , 150 So.2d 171 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * This instruction , is clearly erroneous for the reason that it would allow the jury to find negligence without giving any guide as to what acts or omissions within the pleadings and proof are sufficient to constitute actionable negligence. It simply turned the jury loose to grope in the darkness without any light to guide them as to what would or would not be negligence. Such an instruction has been condemned by this Court on so many different occasions * * *”
2 later decisions 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.