Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 246 S.C. 346 - Edwards v. Bloom

Edwards v. Bloom’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
April 2011
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently April 2011

8 state decisions

30196519701980199020002010decided

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 103 Cal. App. 209 - Havens v. Loebel · West v. Sowell · Epps and Van Liew v. S.C. State Hwy. Dept. · Mo. Pac. Railroad Co., Thompson v. Binkley · 96 Ga. App. 771 - Brown v. Atlanta Gas Light Co.

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.

  1. ““Here, the respondent was driving her automobile over and along Beltline Boulevard, a street with which she was thoroughly familiar, and under the conditions existing that morning which were similar to those which she had previously experienced. She testified that she was proceeding up the hill on said street with the sun directly in front of her and such ‘was blinding me so that I couldn’t see but just about a car length in front of me’ at a speed of ‘about 20 to 25 miles an hour, maybe not that fast.’ She says that she didn’t see the car she struck ‘because I couldn’t’ for the reason that the sun was so blinding that she could see only a little distance in front of her. It thus appears that the respondent was not momentarily blinded by the sun nor was she confronted with a sudden condition which could not have been foreseen. “The evidence here discloses a failure on the part of the respondent to exercise reasonable care for her own safety. The conclusion is inescapable that her negligence concurred with the negligence of the appellant in proximately producing her injury. This defeats her recovery. It follows that the Trial Judge erred in refusing the motion of the appellant for a directed verdict.””
    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.