Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 Tenn. App. 40 - Shew v. Bailey

37 Tenn. App. 40 - Shew v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
4
states following
September 2013
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently September 2013 · most notably 57 Tenn. App. 401 - Houser v. Persinger (1967), Coughran v. Hickox (1960)

29 state decisions

1701951196019701980199020002010decided

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 McClard v. Reid · 34 Tenn. App. 451 - De Rossett v. Malone · 22 Tenn. App. 522 - Duling v. Burnett · Thomason v. Trentham · Hime v. Sullivan

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

  1. ““Now, at the beginning of the trial, yesterday, certain code sections were read to you, and I’ll read them to you again to refresh your memory about them. Now, the plaintiff was relying on two code sections, particularly Section 59-828, Subsection (b). ‘When two vehicles enter an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.’ Now, gentlemen, in that regard, our Supreme Court has held that this phrase ‘at approximately the same time’ means this, it means that when vehicles are — it means that vehicles are approaching an intersection at approximately the same time, when it would appear to a person of ordinary prudence in the position of it — in the position of the driver of the vehicle on the left, that if the two continue on their respective courses at the rate of speed, a collision would be likely to occur. The Court has held that that’s the meaning of this phrase ‘ at approximately the same time. ’ And in that regard, also, the court has held in the interpretation of this statute that it’s the duty of a driver approaching from the left to determine whether he can safely cross the intersecting street, and this duty does not end with his entry into the intersection, but continues as long as there is the danger of a collision. Now, also the plaintiff is relying on Code Section 59-858, Subsection (a) and that is as follows: ‘Any person who drives any vehicle in ”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ Within the meaning of this statute, vehicles are approaching an intersection ‘at approximately the same time ’ when it would appear to a person of ordinary prudence, in the position of the driver of the vehicle approaching from the left of the other vehicle, that if the two continued on their respective courses, at the same rate of speed, a collision would be likely to occur. “The question does not necessarily depend upon which vehicle enters the intersection first, but primarily upon the probability of a collision when the relative distances and speeds of the two vehicles are considered. If, when so considered, there appears a likelihood of a collision unless one or the other alters its speed or course, then they are regarded as approaching the intersection ‘at approximately the same time’, notwithstanding that the vehicle approaching from the left arrived at the intersection first. Cf. Tri-State Transit Co. of Louisiana, Inc. v. Duffey, 27 Tenn. App. 731 , 173 S. W. (2d) 706 . “There are numerous cases supporting this interpretation of similar statutes. They are collected in the annotation appearing in 175 A. L. R. 1022. “Moreover, it is held to be the duty of the driver approaching from the left to determine whether he can safely cross the intersecting street, and this duty does not end with his entry of the intersection but continues as long as there is danger of a collision. See Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Sec. 993, page 217; see Perry v. Car”
    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.