Watson v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably State v. Price (1990), State v. Whiteside (1989)
72 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 State v. Monk · Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home Stores · Exum v. Boyles · Clodfelter v. Carroll · 58 N.C. App. 551 - Scallon v. Hooper
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That the pedestrian negligently placed himself in a position of peril from which he could not escape by the exercise of reasonable care; (2) That the motorist knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care could have discovered, the pedestrian’s perilous position and his incapacity to escape from it before the endangered pedestrian suffered injury at his hands; (3) That the motorist had the time and means to avoid injury to the endangered pedestrian by the exercise of reasonable care after he discovered, or should have discovered, the pedestrian’s perilous position and his incapacity to escape from it; and (4) That the motorist negligently failed to use the available time and means to avoid injury to the endangered pedestrian, and for that reason struck and injured him.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he doctrine of last clear chance is invoked “only in the event it is made to appear that there was an appreciable interval of time between the plaintiffs negligence and his injury during which the defendant, by exercise of ordinary care, could or should have avoided the effect of plaintiffs prior negligence.” Where there is no evidence that a person exercising a proper lookout would have been able, in the exercise of reasonable care, to avoid the collision, the doctrine of last clear chance does not apply.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“`a motorist upon the highway does owe a duty to all other persons using the highway, including its shoulders, to maintain a lookout in the direction in which the motorist is traveling.'”
2 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.