Henry Bellon v. Arthur W. Heinzig’s Empirical Analysis
347 F.2d 4 · 1965
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently September 1982 · most notably Winston Research Corporation, Charles S. Tobias and Wayne R. Johnson v. Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, a Corporation, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, a Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Winston Research Corporation, Charles S. Tobias and Wayne R. Johnson, Cross-Appellees (1965), Anita T. Owens v. Raymond L. White (1967)
25 federal appellate · 3 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 Huddleston v. Dwyer · 56 Wash. 2d 564 - Owens v. Kuro · People of the State of California v. United States of America, Santa Margarita Mutual Water Company v. United States · Holland v. Konda · Gumataotao v. Government of Guam
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The district court's considered view as to the law of the state in which it sits is entitled to great weight, and will be accepted on review unless shown to be clearly wrong.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Appellant’s contention seems to be that Kaighn violated this statute in turning left on the roadway when such movement could not be made with reasonable safety. The proof that it was not reasonably safe was the accident itself. This is reasoning backwards and the statute is not to be interpreted that strictly. The duty imposed on the driver of a car intending to turn right or left on the highway by this statute has not as yet been defined by this court. However, California, with an almost identical statute * * * has interpreted it to mean that the person turning does not need to know with absolute certainty that it is safe, but merely that he must take reasonable precautions before turning. [Citing eases]. * * * “ 'We do not understand it to be the rule that a person is required to know that the turning movement can be made with safety. All that is required is that he take the precautions which a reasonably prudent person would take under the circumstances reasonably appearing to him at the time.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gammel v. Dees““Bellon’s argument is based upon the district court’s statement that ‘Section 32-2167, supra, places an affirmative duty on the person turning to determine that the turn “can be made with reasonable safety.” Bellon clearly failed to comply with this requirement.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gammel v. Dees
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.