Richardson v. Patterson’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently January 1997 · most notably Gebhardt v. Wilson Freight Forwarding Co. (1965), Halprin v. Mora (1956)
12 federal appellate · 37 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 Miles v. Myers · Kotlikoff v. Master, Admrx. · Simpson v. Jones · Johnson v. American Reduction Co. · Master v. Goldstein's Fruit & Produce, Inc.
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Had the plaintiff been content with proving that the collision occurred in the westbound lane where [the defendant’s] car, proceeding eastwardly, should not have been, the burden would have been upon the defendant to offer exculpatory proof if she wished to be found not guilty of causative negligence. . But, here, the explanation of how the [defendant’s] car came to be in the wrong traffic lane was supplied by the plaintiff himself when he offered evidence that it was the result of skidding. It then became the duty of the plaintiff to offer testimony from which the jury could infer that the skid resulted from negligence on the part of the driver. Id. (Emphasis added)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““One who operates a motor vehicle on the wrong, side of the highway is prima facie negligent, and .that fact alone is sufficient to carry the case to the; jury . . . In the case at Bar, the defense was that the presence of Early’s motor vehicle on the wrong side of the highway was due to skidding.^ It has been held that skidding in and of itself is not evidence of negligence . . . However, the operator of a motor vehicle is bound to take into account the condition of the highway . . . and skidding may be and frequently is the result of negligence . . . Thus the question of negligence in skidding cases becomes an' issue of fact for the jury”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To establish liability against an absentee owner, it must be shown not only that the driver was the owner’s servant but also that such servant was at the time engaged in the master’s business so as to be subject to the master’s control or right of control.... Negligence mil not be imputed to the husband of a motorist where the uncontradicted evidence is that the motorist was on a mission of her own and that her husband has not ordered or requested her to do anything for him. [Citations omitted].”
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.