Terry v. Nelms’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 1973 · most notably Maslankowski v. Beam Ex Rel. Quernemeon (1972), Crocker v. Lee (1954)
30 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 Ogden v. Saunders · Roberson v. State · Birmingham Railway Light & Power Co. v. Seaborn · J. H. Burton Sons Co. v. May · Thompson v. Duncan
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The consistent holding of this court has been that error to reverse must be pronounced in such a misdirection to the jury. McCaa v. Thomas, supra [ 207 Ala. 211 , 92 So. 414 ]; Dudley v. Alabama Utilities Service Co., supra [ 225 Ala. 531 , 144 So. 5 ] ; Newsome v. Louisville & N. R. Co., supra [ 20 Ala.App. 349 , 102 So. 61 ] ; Seaboard A. L. Ry. Co. v. Laney, 199 Ala. 654 , 75 So. 15 ; Thompson v. Duncan, 76 Ala. 334 ; Carter v. Ne-Hi Bottling Co., 226 Ala. 324 , 146 So. 821 ; Brooks v. Rowell, 222 Ala. 616 , 133 So. 903 ; Kelly v. Hanwick, supra [ 228 Ala. 336 , 153 So. 269 ].””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The conclusion, upon a most careful consideration of the evidence, is unescapable that the plaintiff was guilty of the grossest negligence in attempting to pass through the intersection immediately in front of the approaching truck, which confessedly had the right of way, and this negligence on his part proximately contributed to his injury. And, further, the conclusion is unescapable that this contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff continued to the instant of time that the collision occurred, and that the truck driver was guilty of no subsequent negligence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Robinson v. Morrison““P 8. The Court charges the jury that if you are reasonably satisfied, from the evidence in this case that the defendant, Helton, intentionally drove his automobile across the road in front of the plaintiff with knowledge thát the plaintiff was approaching, or with knowledge of facts which would have put him on notice that the plaintiff might be approaching you cannot' charge the plaintiff with contributory: negligence under Count One of the-> complaint.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Helton v. Easter
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.