Commonwealth v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1967
15 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 Lexington-Hazard Express Company v. Umberger · Commonwealth v. Haly · Roederer's Administratrix v. Gray · Briggs v. Davis, Director General · Downing v. Baucom's Administratrix
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is earnestly insisted by appellants that appellee wholly failed to exercise any precaution for his own safety; that his injuries resulted from his own negligence in disregarding his duties to slacken his speed and give warning of his approach; and that the motion for a peremptory instruction to find for the defendants should have been sustained. Norfolk & W. Railway Company v. Barney, 262 Ky. 228 , 90 S. W. (2d) 14 ; Downing v. Baucom’s Adm’x, 216 Ky. 108 , 287 S. W. 362 , and other cases are cited, in which it was held that it was the duty of the driver of an automobile, when blinded by the lights of an approaching car, to slacken his speed, give warning of his car’s approach, and have it under control. These were cases in which the driver of the car was the defendant, and the court was referring to the care he must exercise to avoid injury to others on the highway! Sounding his horn or giving warning of his car’s approach in some other manner would have availed appellee nothing in the present case. In order to avoid the charge of negligence, it- was incumbent upon him to observe, however, the duty to- slacken the speed of his car.if that was necessary to enable him to have it under reasonable control. In Lexington-Hazard Express Company v. Umberger, 243 Ky. 419 , 48 S. W. (2d) 1066 , the driver of an automobile, while blinded by the lights of a passing car and unable to see ahead, crashed into a.truck parked on the road. He was injured and sued the owner of the truck. I”
2 later decisions 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.