Harrison Richardson v. Thomas E. Gregory’s Empirical Analysis
281 F.2d 626 · 1960
Citation profile
64 federal appellate · 17 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 128 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably Canterbury v. Spence (1972), United States v. Blackwell (1982)
64 federal appellate · 17 district · 36 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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Ross v. Hartman · Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Britton · Peigh v. Baltimore & O. R.
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 128 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to protect persons in the plaintiff's position or to prevent the type of accident that occurred.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Thus a correct instruction on violation of a traffic regulation embraces the idea that violation of a regulation which was made for the protection of one in plaintiff’s position is in and of itself negligence in the sense that it is conclusive evidence of failure to exercise due care on the part of the defendant. But it must be made equally clear to a jury that this negligence does not produce legal liability unless the jury finds that such negligence is the proximate cause of the injury.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The doctrine presupposes a perilous situation created or existing through the negligence of both the plaintiff and the defendant, but assumes that there was a time after such negligence had occurred when the defendant could, and the plaintiff could not, by the use of means available, avoid the accident. It is not applicable if the emergency is so sudden that there is not time to avoid the collision, for the defendant is not required to act instantaneously.””
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.