Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 279 PA 214 - Weaver v. Pickering

Weaver v. Pickering’s Empirical Analysis

1924

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
3
states following
September 1974
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 1974 · most notably Dando v. Brobst (1935), Robb v. Quaker City Cab Co. (1925)

2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions

80192419301940195019601970decided

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 Anderson v. Wood, Appellant · Virgilio v. Walker · Robb v. Connellsville Bor. · Lamont v. Adams Express Co. · Lorah v. Rinehart

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

  1. ““Appellant cites clause 4 [similar to our Rem. Rev. Stat., Vol. 7 A, § 6360-75] of said section 25, of the act above cited, P. L. 695, requiring vehicular traffic at all times to keep as close as possible to the right hand side of the street and contends that it absolves a pedestrian from the duty to look in the direction from which such traffic approaches, before or while crossing the opposite side of the cartway. This contention cannot be sustained; it overlooks clause 3 [similar to the exception of Rem. Rev. Stat., Vol. 7A., § 6360-75] of the same section (P. L. 694), which directs a vehicle to turn to the left when passing another going in the same direction. This gives the former the right temporarily to go upon, or if necessary beyond, the center of the cartway, which right, so far as appears, defendant was lawfully exercising when passing the row of standing automobiles. Vehicles would also be justified in turning to the left to avoid an obstruction, like building material; so it cannot be blindly assumed that they will under all conditions and at all times travel only on the right-hand side of the street, as it is not possible to do so.””
    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.