349 So. 2d 1141 - Gribble v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Mitchell v. Moore (1981), 519 So. 2d 1244 - Ensor v. WILSON BY AND THROUGH WILSON (1987)
2 federal appellate · 23 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 Vest v. Gay · Long v. Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham Railroad · Sturdivant v. Crawford · PHOENIX INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK v. Leonard
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It has long been assumed by bench and bar in Alabama that one who drives his auto into the rear of another who is stopped in obedience to a traffic light is prima facie guilty of negligence. An extensive search for precedent to support this assumption fails to reveal authority precisely in point. The rule in this regard is well stated in 8 Am. Jur. 2d [ Automobiles and Highway Traffic ] at § 769 [1963], p. 329. "A motorist approaching an intersection is also required to have his vehicle under control so that he does not drive into the rear of a vehicle whose driver is obeying traffic signals by waiting for the red light to change."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Generally speaking, however, a motorist ahead owes no duty to a motorist to the rear except to use the road in the usual way, in keeping with the laws of the road, and until he has been aware of it, by signal or otherwise, he has a right to assume either that there is no other motorist in the close proximity to the rear or *Page 1046 that, being there, the motorist to the rear has his vehicle under such control as not to interfere with the free use of the road in front of and to the side of him in any lawful manner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"... "Defendants say that benefits received from a source wholly independent of the wrongdoer should not be taken into account in computing plaintiff's recoverable damages; such evidence is not relevant, its existence renders neither more probable nor less probable any material fact in the case. They are absolutely correct...." (Emphasis added.)”
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.