Powell v. Clark’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “1. That the defendant operated his car at a speed that was greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions then and there existing, with respect to weather conditions and possible road construction hazards, in violation of G.S. § 20-141. 2. That the defendant failed to decrease his speed as he approached, entered and transversed an intersection, in violation of G.S. § 20-141. 3. That the defendant failed to decrease his speed as necessary to avoid colliding with a person on or entering the highway, in violation of G.S. § 20-141(m). 4. That the defendant failed to sound his horn to warn the plaintiff of his approach, in violation of G.S. § 20-174(e). 5. That the defendant failed to exercise due care to avoid hitting the plaintiff in that he failed to keep a proper lookout, or to keep his car under proper control. From these inferences the jury could find that the defendant was negligent and that his negligence was a proximate cause of plaintiffs injuries. Defendant contends, however, that the evidence establishes as a matter of law that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent so as to bar plaintiffs right to recover. We agree that the evidence is sufficient to raise an inference, among others, that the plaintiff failed to yield the right-of-way and that, without due regard for his own safety, he stepped into the path of the defendant’s car. But, as we have shown above, the evidence in this case is such as to raise a number of reasonable inferences. Rational per”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 N.C. App. 573 - Sessoms v. Roberson

2. “in failing to instruct the jury that, in order for a sudden emergency to excuse compliance with a motorist’s statutory duty to drive solely on the righthand side of the street, the motorist seeking to avoid compliance with the statutory duty must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that he or she has met the requirements for avoidance set out in the statute, that is, that there was no reasonable alternative method of avoiding the partial obstruction in the street than crossing the center line of the street and that he or she exercised such care as a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the circumstances, considering the statutory standards.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Harris v. Guyton