Rutherford v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently May 1968 · most notably 7 Ariz. App. 476 - Pesqueira v. Talbot (1968), Hinton v. Dixie Ohio Exp. Co. (1951)
3 federal appellate · 28 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 Pryor's Administrator v. Otter · Dixon v. Stringer · Beiser v. Cin., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. · Home Laundry Co. v. Cook · McNamara v. Prather
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Here, according to appellee, when he started to make the turn Collins’ car was about 300 yards away. He had a right to assume that Collins was not driving at a speed greater than was reasonable and proper and that he would pass out of the intersection before Collins reached it if his estimate was correct. It is self-evident that one may turn left across a highway when other cars are approaching —were this not true such a turn could rarely be made on a much traveled highway. The statute governing the making of such turns contemplates that this may be done. As it may be done, it is for the jury to say, in the ordinary case where the evidence is conflicting, as here, who was and who was not negligent and whose negligence was, or was not, the proximate, or contributing, cause of a collision when one occurs. The jury here were justified in finding either that Collins did not have his car under reasonable control, or that he was not keeping a reasonable lookout, or that he was traveling at an excessive rate of speed, and that such violation of duty was the proximate cause of the collision. They were further justified in finding that negligence on appellee’s part was not the proximate cause of, or contributing cause to, the collision.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hilsenrad v. Bowling
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.