Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 SW2D 655 - Levin v. Caldwell

Levin v. Caldwell’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
3
states following
June 1993
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 1993 · most notably Shelton v. Bruner (1969), Steele v. Goosen (1959)

30 state decisions

14019561960197019801990decided

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 Knight Ex Rel. Knight v. Richey · Wilt v. Moody · Benge v. Scharbauer · Colvin v. Mills · L. E. Whitham v. Briggs

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

  1. ““Since it appears that this case will likely be retried, we deem it prudent to mention that plaintiff cannot recover against both defendants under instructions based upon the hypothesized fact that each entered the intersection against the red light. If, upon another trial, there is a submission against Caldwell of negligence in failing to obey the red traffic signal, and a submission against Kotelow of excessive speed predicated upon a finding of the essential fact that he entered the intersection when the red signal was being exhibited in his direction, the jury must be instructed that it cannot return a verdict against both defendants based upon a finding for plaintiff on each of these submissions. This is not to say that plaintiff is precluded from recovering against each defendant on assignments of negligence properly submitted.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““We have concluded that the instruction under consideration should have required a specific finding of the essential fact which we have held would have supported a finding of the ultimate fact or issue of excessive speed. There was a direct conflict in the evidence on the question as to which driver had the green light. It would therefore appear that, in fairly submitting the issue of Kotelov’s negligence in driving at an excessive rate of speed, there should have been a submission of the fact that a red signal was displayed when he approached and moved out into the intersection. We conclude that the general submission was reversible error.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““First, defendant either: failed to keep a careful lookout, or knew or by the use of the highest degree of care could have known that there was a reasonable likelihood of a collision in time thereafter to have stopped but defendant failed to do so, and . . . .””
    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.