Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 Ky. 106 - Lyons v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines

Lyons v. Southeastern Greyhound Lines’s Empirical Analysis

1940

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
September 1971
most recently cited

32 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently September 1971 · most notably Coney Island Co., Inc. v. Brown (1942), Ken-Ten Coach Lines, Inc. v. Siler (1946)

32 state decisions

1201940195019601970decided

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 Nugent v. Nugent's Ex'r · Hogge v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., of Delaware · Pennington's Adm'r v. Pure Milk Co. · Chesapeake Ohio Railway Company v. Hay · Jordan v. Dinwiddie

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

  1. ““In respect to the liability of a carrier for injury of a passenger resulting from a §udden jerking or stopping of the vehicle, it is the established rule that the carrier is not liable unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that the act was sudden, unusual and unnecessary' and of such violence as to indicate negligence, and an instruction which does not submit or indicate all of those elements is erroneous. * * * If the violence of the jerk or stopping is sudden and unusual in the course of the ordinary operation of the machine, or of such character that the jury may infer that it was unnecessary and was the result only of careless operation of the vehicle, the evidence will be deemed sufficient prima facie to establish negligence. * * * In this case the plaintiff’s testimony — though contradicted by the preponderance of the evidence — was that he was injured • by a sudden stopping of the bus. But all of the evidence proves that the emergency made such action necessary. .Hence one of the essential elements of his cause of action was not established. We are of . opinion, therefore, that the court properly gave a peremptory instruction to the jury to find for the defendant.””
    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.