Raper v. Byrum’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Since the burden of proof on the issue of contributory negligence is upon the defendants, a motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit upon that ground should be allowed only when the plaintiff’s evidence, considered alone and taken in the light most favorable to him, together with all inferences favorable to him which may reasonably be drawn therefrom, so clearly establishes the defense that no other conclusion can reasonably be drawn. Cowan v. Transfer Co., 262 N.C. 550 , 138 S.E. 2d 228 ; Waters v. Harris, 250 N.C. 701 , 110 S.E. 2d 283 ; Johnson v. Thompson, 250 N.C. 665 , 110 S.E. 2d 306 ; Morrisette v. Boone Co., 235 N.C. 162 , 69 S.E. 2d 239 ; Strong’s N. C. Index, Negligence, § 26, and cases there cited.” Raper v. Byrum, 265 N.C. 269 , 144 S.E. 2d 38 (1965).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McNulty v. Chaney · Davis v. Imes

2. ““(a) He operated an automobile upon a highway carelessly and heedlessly in willful and wanton disregard of the rights and safety of others and without due caution and circumspection and at a speed and in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger persons and property, in violation of G.S. § 20-140. (b) He operated an automobile upon a public highway at a speed greater than was reasonable and prudent under the conditions then existing in violation of G.S. § 20-141 (a). (c) He operated an automobile upon a public highway at a rate of speed in excess of 55 miles per hour, in violation of G.S. § 20-141 (b). (d) He failed to reduce speed when approaching and going around a curve. (e) He failed to reduce speed when approaching a hill-crest. (f) In that upon a highway of sufficient width, he failed to drive the automobile upon the right half of the highway and as closely as possible to the right-hand edge or curb thereof, in violation of G.S. § 20-146. (g) In that when approaching an automobile proceeding in the opposite direction he failed to pass to the right of the plaintiff’s intestate’s automobile and failed to give to the plaintiff’s intestate at least one-half of the main- traveled portion of the roadway, in violation of G.S. 148. o (h) He drove on the public highways without keeping a proper lookout, without paying proper attention to his driving and without keeping the vehicle which he was driving under proper control.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davis v. Imes

3. “The plaintiff’s evidence permits no other reasonable conclusion but that his intestate brought his automobile to a stop at a point where he had an unobstructed view of the defendants’ auto mobile approaching on the dominant highway, and that he resumed his progress into the intersection at a very slow rate of speed when the defendants’ automobile was so near to the intersection and moving at such a speed that in the exercise of reasonable prudence he should have seen that he could not cross in safety. His entry into the intersection in this manner and under these conditions was negligence and was one of the proximate causes of the collision and of his death, if not the sole proximate cause thereof.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 157 N.C. App. 696 - Williams v. Davis