Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 318 Pa. 325 - Dando v. Brobst

Dando v. Brobst’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
3
states following
April 1975
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 1975 · most notably Auel v. White (1957), Reilly v. Philadelphia (1937)

5 federal appellate · 43 state decisions

20019351940195019601970decided

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 Holden v. Pennsylvania Railroad · Newman v. Protective Motor Service Co. · Marland v. Pittsb. & L. E. R. · Watson v. Lit Brothers · Weaver v. Pickering

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

  1. ““Where one steps into a busy street and is immediately struck by a passing vehicle which he could have seen had he looked, he is barred by his own negligence”: Harris v. Commercial Ice Co., 153 Pa. 278 ; Weaver v. Pickering, 279 Pa. 214 ; Goff v. College Hill Boro., 299 Pa. 343 . In Dando v. Brobst, supra, the Supreme Court further said (p. 329) : “Plaintiff was under a duty to look before stepping into the street, and since the ‘incontrovertible physical facts’ show that the car was almost upon her when she stepped from the curb and that she would certainly have seen it if she had looked, it is plain that she must have failed to look. Her own negligence therefore bars her recovery.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “. . . plaintiff must inevitably have seen the car if she had looked, and if she saw nothing she could not have been looking. As we have repeatedly pointed out, it is vain for a person to say he looked when, in spite of what his eyes must have told him, he moved into the path of an approaching car or train by which he was immediately struck.”
    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.