Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 Mich. 74 - Brugh v. Bigelow

Brugh v. Bigelow’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
8
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2009

22 state decisions

501944195019601970198019902000decided

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 Wagner v. International Railway Co. · Bird v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance · People of the State of New York v. . Majone · Lewis v. Flint & Pere Marquette Ry Co. · Twomley v. Central Park North & East River Railroad

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

  1. ““At this point counsel for defendant makes the distinction that if plaintiff had been injured in the rescue of defendant’s passenger, Swan, there would be authority to hold defendant liable but argues that defendant owed no duty to himself not to make himself an object of necessary rescue and hence he is to be absolved of liability. “We can make no such distinction of duty defining the duties of drivers of automobiles on the highways of this State. This was a roadside where passers-by would be expected to stop and render needful assistance. Defendant’s claim that he owed himself and his rescuer no duty is without merit. His cries for help belie his claimed freedom from duty. Defendant further argues that rescue is unusual and that it is an unusual thing and therefore not to be anticipated that passers-by would respond to relieve known dire necessity resulting from an automobile accident. We understand the contrary to be the case. “Whether the defendant was negligent, and if so, whether such negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, are questions for the jury.””
    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.