Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 SW2D 543 - Parsons v. Noel

Parsons v. Noel’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
1
states following
April 1990
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1990

3 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

7019541960197019801990decided

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 Thompson v. Byers Transp. Co. · Thompson v. Byers Transportation Co. · Johnson v. Lee Way Motor Freight · Rockenstein v. Rogers · Panos v. Foley Bros. Dry Goods Co.

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.

  1. ““The burden of establishing plaintiff’s contributory negligence falls upon the defendant unless it be established as a matter of law by plaintiff’s evidence. With defendant carrying the burden of proof, plaintiff’s contributory negligence most frequently is a fact issue for the jury for the credibility of the witnesses is involved, especially where there is a conflict in the testimony, the same as is defendant’s actionable negligence ordinarily a fact issue. Consequently, plaintiff’s contributory negligence is for the jury unless reasonable minds can draw only the conclusion that plaintiff was negligent. The whole evidence and all legitimate inferences deducible therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff and taken as true while the evidence and inferences favorable to defendant are disregarded in ruling the issue of contributory negligence as a matter of law. ⅜⅞ ⅜ ⅜ ⅜ ⅝ jft “In the foregoing circumstances plaintiff’s contributory negligence was not established as a matter of law. He was not aware of the presence of defendant’s trailer blocking the highway at a place where he had a right to as- same the way was clear and he could proceed with safety on his side of the pavement. The situation is distinguishable from defendant’s cases wherein automobilists have crashed into a railroad train or cars blocking a highway-railroad grade intersection where they do not have the right to assume the way is clear and are required to anticipate the possible presence of c”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.