Schmit v. Jansen’s Empirical Analysis
1945
Citation profile
2 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1982 · most notably Firkus v. Rombalski (1964), Gross v. Johnson (1962)
2 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Loizzo v. Conforti · Stabler v. Copeland
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"That the usual marker or sign erected to inform travelers of the superior character of an intersecting road is temporarily removed or destroyed does not change the character of the road nor affect the usual incidents appropriate to such road, such as its conferring the right of way upon traffic flowing along it as against that on intersecting roads, although in a case where a motorist, approaching an arterial highway from the right, did not see the stop sign because the edge had been turned toward him, it was held that a person proceeding in the exercise of ordinary care cannot be held negligent in failing to stop at an intersection with an arterial highway with which he is not familiar and which is not properly marked with a lawful stop sign. "Conversely, where signs or markers have been posted by the proper authorities to the effect that a particular road is of superior classification, it will be regarded as being such so far as concerns the question of right of way, even though not legally established as a road within that particular classification. A driver has the right to assume, unless he knew otherwise, that a sign has been erected by the proper authority."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“" Vehicle approaching or entering intersection. (a) The driver of a vehicle approaching an intersection shall yield the right of way to a vehicle which has entered the intersection from a different highway. "(b) When two [2] vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right of way to the vehicle on the right. "(c) The right of way rules declared in paragraphs (a) and (b) are modified at through highways and otherwise as hereinafter stated in this article [64-18-27 to 64-18-31]." [Emphasis added].”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Williams v. Cobb““A motorist on an arterial highway, vehicular traffic entering which from intersecting highways is supposed to stop, has the right to assume that this will be done, even where the stop sign has, without the knowledge of the motorist on the arterial highway, been accidentally turned so as to fail to conform with the requirement of law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fauks v. Garrett
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.