Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 SW2D 696 - Stehling v. Johnston

Stehling v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
December 2012
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 2012

17 state decisions

100193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harvey · Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Harvey · Harvey v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. · Coons v. Culp

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

  1. ““Appellant contends that the jury’s findings upon contributory negligence were inconsistent and incompatible with their further finding that appellee did not have the right of way, which appellant probably erroneously construes into a finding that he himself had the right of way. He contends that as he had the right of way he was relieved of the duty otherwise resting upon him of keeping a lookout. We are unable to sustain this contention, which is presented in appellant’s propositions 4a and ,5. The duty rests upon every traveler to keep a lookout in all situations of which he may be aware. If he is in that vague and elusive position of haying the right of way across a city street intersection, yet he may not proceed blindly and in disregard of the dangers which common knowledge and everyday experience and observation teach us lurk in every such situation. Having such right of way may give the traveler a certain technical legal status of superiority over his fellows thereabouts, but as a practical matter it gives him but scant assurance of safety from the recklessness or carelessness of others not so positioned and knowing or caring but little for his technical advantage. He is still under the duty of protecting himself from such heedless acts of others as may be anticipated or foreseen from his point of vantage, whatever and wherever it is. Here, the jury found that, although appellant may have had the right of way, yet, being so positioned, he failed to keep such lookout ‘”
    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.