McCullough v. Amoco Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 state decisions

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

1. “[T]he evidence is uncontraverted that plaintiff eventually came into [the driver’s] view, left the median, entered the westbound lane of the southern branch, and ran ‘into the immediate path of the tanker.’ Under these circumstances, [the driver] could not have reasonably been expected to anticipate plaintiff’s movement, thereby avoiding the accident. The trial judge correctly concluded that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on the issue of negligence. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that sufficient evidence of [the driver’s] negligence could be found, plaintiffs contributory negligence appears without contradiction, [citations omitted.] Again assuming the driver’s negligence arguendo and the plaintiff’s contributory negligence ... there has been no forecast of evidence of a last clear chance on the part of the defendant’s driver to avoid the collision.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Charles v. Dougal · 265 N.C. App. 626 - Patterson v. Worley

2. “could not have reasonably been expected to anticipate plaintiff's movement, thereby avoiding the accident.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 265 N.C. App. 626 - Patterson v. Worley