Walker v. Bowling’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1995 · most notably Herrington v. Hudson (1955), Southern Railway Company v. Sanford (1954)
33 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 McGeever v. O'Byrne · Hamilton v. Browning · Birmingham Belt R. Co. v. Nelson · Crescent Motor Co. v. Stone · Utility Trailer Works v. Phillips
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[A] person riding in an automobile driven by another is not absolved from all personal care for his own safety, but has the duty of exercising reasonable or ordinary care to avoid injury.... The duty of the passenger is, therefore, not original, with respect to the operation of the vehicle, but is resultant and is brought into effect by known and appreciated circumstances. "”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellee seems to be troubled about the general charge as to plea 3 being predicated, on a belief of the evidence rather than reasonable satisfaction from it, and tried to write around, that supposed defect. But it is not a defect. As to the áffirmative charge it is- not a question of being reasonably satisfied of the existence of a certain state of facts or of a certain inference from them, but a belief of the evidence as a whole. When a charge is predicated on a finding by the jury from the evidence of a fact or inference, ‘reasonably satisfied’ is the correct form of hypothesis. That distinction is illustrated in the case of Birmingham Belt R. R. v. Nelson, 216 Ala. 149 , 112 So. 422 . Charge 7 was the affirmative charge that the driver of the car was guilty of negligence. The hypothesis was properly stated to be that the jury believed the evidence and the court was held to have erred in refusing it. Charge 22 was hypothesized upon a belief from the evidence that the sole proximate cause was the negligence of the driver and was held to be defective in not hypothesizing it on a reasonable satisfaction of that fact or inference from the evidence. Reversible error will not be predicated on giving or refusing such a charge. But that has no application to the general charge. This distinction is apparent in our cases. Bryan v. Ware, 20 Ala. 687 ; Hall’s Heirs v. Hall. 47 Ala. 290 ; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Louisell, 161 Ala. 231 , 50 So. 87 ; Byars v. Alabama Power Co., 233 Al”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.