Callaway v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

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

1. ““The pertinent principle is well stated in St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Guthrie, 216 Ala. 613, 615 , 114 So. 215, 217 , 56 A.L.R. 1110 : “ ‘The rule sanctioned by the authorities * * * is that, in order to charge the railroad with negligence in such a case, it must be shown that defendant’s employees in charge of the train, in the exercise of reasonable care, ought to know that on account of darkness the cars upon the crossing are such an obstruction that people traveling along the highway in automobiles properly equipped with lights and carefully operated at a reasonable rate of speed would be likely to come into collision with them; in other words, the employees of the defendant, in the absence of some peculiar environment, are justified in believing that travelers in automobiles properly lighted and driving at reasonable speed will observe the cars upon the crossing in time to avoid coming into collision with them.’ “To the same effect are Southern R. Co. v. Lambert, supra; Domite v. Thompson, La.App., 9 So.2d 55 ; William A. Smith Const. Co., Inc., v. Brumley, 10 Cir., 88 F.2d 803 ; 44 Am.Jur. 741, § 501; 3 Blashfield’s Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Perm.Ed., § 1794. * * * “Here the circumstances bring the case within the exception. The facts adduced afford a proper inference that by reason of the topography and the grade and course of the highway and the overhanging tree limbs obstructing the signal light from view, the presence of the train could not, ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watson v. Birmingham Southern R. Co.

2. “"The contention that there was error in refusing the general affirmative charge as to the contributory negligence of plaintiff is sought to be sustained by the generally stated rule of absolute duty at any railroad crossing where cars and locomotives are liable to be moving of anyone attempting to cross the railroad track to stop, look and listen, and a denial of recovery as for simple initial negligence of the railroad if the failure to discharge such duty proximately caused the injury. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Jones , 202 Ala. 222 , 80 So. 44 [(1918)]; Johnston v. Southern [Ry. Co. , 236 Ala. 184 , 181 So. 253 [(1938)]. "The doctrine is rested on the duty of the traveler to keep a continuous lookout as he approaches a railroad crossing until he can see that no train is dangerously near. So, when the undisputed facts disclose that by a proper lookout he could not fail to see the train, he cannot acquit himself of contributory negligence by saying he looked and did not see it. "But it cannot be affirmed as a matter of law in every case and under all circumstances that there is an absolute duty to stop, look and listen before a traveler may go upon a railroad crossing, as where one, in the exercise of reasonable care, did not know of the crossing. `What is, or is not, ordinary care often depends upon the facts of the particular case. The rule, "stop, look, and listen," is not arbitrary or invariable as to time and place. It may depend in some measure upon the familiarity ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Ridgeway v. CSX Transp., Inc.

3. ““By reason of the downgrade of the highway leading west toward the crossing, lights on motor vehicles traveling in that direction are focused only on the roadway until in immediate vicinity of the crossing, at which point the highway makes an abrupt upgrade and the lights then become focused on a view of the crossing.” (Emphasis supplied.)-”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Watson v. Birmingham Southern R. Co.