Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 S.W.2d 621 - Renshaw v. Countess

Renshaw v. Countess’s Empirical Analysis

1956

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
2
states following
June 1999
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 1999 · most notably Hall v. National Supply Co. (1959), O. M. Franklin Serum Co. v. C. A. Hoover & Son (1966)

2 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

18019561960197019801990decided

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 Bock v. Fellman Dry Goods Co. · O'Connor v. United R.R. of S.F. · Vincent v. Norton & Taunton Street Railway Co. · Richmond Traction Co. v. Clarke · Caraway v. Behrendt

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.

  1. ““We think it is the law that a motorist following another vehicle must drive at a reasonable speed, keep back a reasonable distance, and keep his vehicle under reasonable control so as to provide for the contingency of a car in front suddenly stopping; that he must maintain a proper lookout for the car in front, so that he can stop without a collision or can turn out and pass the vehicle in front without getting in the way of traffic approaching from the opposite direction. A question of fact as to the existence of negligence is usually presented when one motor vehicle overtakes and strikes one in front of it, going in the same direction. ‡ ‡»”
    4 later decisions 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.