Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 368 SW2D 533 - Anthony v. Jennings

Anthony v. Jennings’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
2
states following
December 1995
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1995

9 state decisions

401963197019801990decided

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 Lewis Ex Rel. Piening v. Zagata · Nelms Ex Rel. Nelms v. Bright · Filkins v. Snavely · Bates v. Brown Shoe Co. · Fritz v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.

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

  1. ““ * * * It has been frequently stated that traffic regulations are not unyielding and inflexible and are not to be applied rigidly, absolutely and peremptorily without regard to circumstances or conditions, Wines v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Mo.App., 246 S.W.2d 525 , MacArthur v. Gendron, Mo.App., 312 S.W.2d 146 , and that the duties thereby imposed may be qualified by circumstances, Nelms v. Bright, Mo.Sup., 299 S.W.2d 483 , such as considerations of safety, Lix v. Gastian, Mo.App., 287 S.W.2d 354 , emergency conditions, Lewis v. Zagata, 350 Mo. 446 166 S.W.2d 541 , Filkins v. Snavely, 359 Mo. 356 , 221 S.W.2d 736 , or impossibility. Politte v. Miller, supra. [Mo.App., 301 S.W.2d 839 ], In such unusual circumstances deviation from the statutory standard will not be considered as negligence per se.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Failure to yield as directed by Section 304.021(3), supra, does not in every instance amount per se to negligence or failure to exercise the highest degree of care, so as to tax such an operator with responsibility for every resultant accident. Each case depends upon its own facts. The evidence may in some cases require a directed verdict. In others, it is a question for the jury. It is best if an instruction hypothesizes the pertinent facts where such facts are in evidence. At the least it must permit and require the jury to decide if the actions complained of amounted to negligence and failure to exercise the highest degree of care. To instruct a jury that if the motorist turns left and is struck by an oncoming car, then he is negligent and liable is, in effect, directing a verdict”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““One about to make a turn usually has the right to act upon appearances and unless there is a reasonable indication to the contrary, to assume that the driver of the other approaching vehicle will not act negligently and will operate his vehicle in a prudent and lawful manner.””
    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.