Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 40 INDAPP 381 - Saylor v. Union Traction Co.

Saylor v. Union Traction Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1907

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
4
states following
June 1920
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently June 1920

21 state decisions

140190719101920decided

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 Indianapolis, Peru & Chicago Railway Co. v. Pitzer · Moebus v. . Herrmann · Indianapolis Street Railway Co. v. Marschke · Robbins v. Springfield Street Railway Co. · Indianapolis Street Railway Co. v. Schmidt

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

  1. “. “The mere fact that a traveler can see an approaching car, by which he is afterwards struck, does not in itself establish his contributory negligence. It must not only be approaching, but must be in such close proximity that, taking into account the reasonable rate of speed for such places and present conditions, or apparent rate of speed at which the car is traveling, a reasonably prudent man would not attempt to cross. . . . The care that is required of the pedestrian at a particular crossing can only be properly measured by taking into consideration the care he has a right to expect will be exercised by those managing a street car along the street he is about to cross. Whether he has a right to expect that the cars will be going at a slow rate of speed, that they will be under control, that they will give the proper signals of alarm to warn him of their approach — all should be considered in determining what is reasonably required of him in making such crossing.” (Saylor v. Union Traction Co., 40 Ind. App. 381, 387, 388 , 81 N. E. 94 .)”
    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.