Lundgren v. Converse’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 1966
2 federal appellate · 15 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 Ritchey v. Watson · 100 Cal. App. 53 - Keyes v. Hawley · 105 Cal. App. 17 - Wynne v. Wright · 46 Cal. App. 661 - Robinson v. Clemons · 54 Cal. App. 31 - Traynor v. McGilvray
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.
““It appears from his testimony that respondent did in fact look to the right before entering the intersection and observed no approaching car within the range of his vision, a distance of 80 feet. Whether it was reasonably prudent for him to proceed at a slow rate of speed across the intersection was a question of fa'ct for the determination of the jury.” “A motorist who fails to look on ■ entering an intersection is generally negligent as a' matter of law, but if his view in a particular direction is ob- ■ struct ed, his failure to look in. that direction presents a question for the. jury, as does his failure to look more than once.” 10 Blashfield’s Cyc. of Automobile Law and Practice, 6619, p. . 24. (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lusty v. Ostlie
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.