310 So. 2d 914 - White v. Thomason’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2019
1 federal appellate · 22 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 Bryan Bros. Packing Co. v. Grubbs · Seals v. St. Regis Paper Company · Vascoe v. FORD · Myrick v. Holifield · 227 So. 2d 475 - Tucker v. City of Okolona
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f reasonable minds might differ as to this question, it becomes a jury issue.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Entrican v. Ming · Solanki v. Ervin“The question involved in the Tucker case was whether the maintenance by the city of an overhead traffic control light at a street intersection for the control of vehicular traffic was a governmental function or a proprietary function. We held the trial court was in error in sustaining a demurrer to the declaration which charged that the plaintiff was driving in a careful and prudent manner in reliance upon the green light and entered the intersection on the green light. The traffic light was out of repair, a fact known to the city for a period of at least a week. The light suddenly and immediately changed from green to red, thus giving a green light to an oncoming vehicle resulting in a collision which damaged plaintiff's automobile. We held the maintenance of the traffic light was a proprietary function. However, there is a marked distinction between maintaining an overhead traffic light and the replacement of one that has been completely removed. The action of the city in having a defective light which showed green to both oncoming vehicles could render the street unsafe for persons using ordinary care for their own safety. However, the absence of any traffic control device at an intersection does not render the intersection unsafe for use by persons exercising ordinary care and caution for their own safety. (Emphasis added). ..... We are also of the opinion the trial court was correct in holding the facts in this case did not present a jury issue as to the liability of the”
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.