Chrestenson v. Harms’s Empirical Analysis
1917
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently August 1939
4 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 Thompson v. Purdy · Hart v. Village of New Haven · Grotjan v. Rice · Hiles v. Johnson · Moore v. Dickinson
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““And if you find that the defendant Whaley was acting in such a manner as a prudent person would act under like circumstances, and with due regard for the safety of the persons who were gathered at the place where the accident occurred, and was not driving his automobile at a dangerous rate of speed, or faster than is permitted by the laws of this state, which is ten miles an hour, then your verdict should be for the defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chrestensen v. Harms““In this case there is no. question as to the correctness of the testimony of the witnesses or of any misunderstanding by them of the meaning -intended to 'be conveyed by the defendants in ■making said statements.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Chrestensen v. Harms
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.