Hymer v. Chai’s Empirical Analysis
407 F.2d 136 · 1969
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1999 · most notably Moor v. County of Alameda (1973), Aldinger v. Howard (1976)
31 federal appellate · 16 district · 2 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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Hurn v. Oursler · Wilson v. American Chain & Cable 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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(j) oinder of claims, not joinder of parties, is the object of the doctrine,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiffs-appellants’ instruction No. 16: “The maximum rate of speed provided by statute is not always permissible under any and all circumstances, but the speed must be reasonable and proper under the existing conditions at the place of operation.” Plaintiffs-appellants’ instruction No. 17: “The speed that is reasonable or proper depends on what a person of reasonable and ordinary prudence would do under the existing conditions.” Plaintiffs-appellants’ instruction No. 18: “The Traffic Code of the City and County of Honolulu in effect at the time of the collision in this case provides, in part, as follows: ‘Sec. 15-24.17. Attention to Driving. Every operator of a motor vehicle shall exercise due care in the operation of such vehicle upon any street or highway in order to avoid collision with any person, vehicle or other property on or off such street or highway. ’ ’ ’ Plaintiffs-appellants’ instruction No. 19: “The Traffic Code of the City and County of Honolulu in effect at the time of the collision in this case provides, in part, as follows: ‘Sec. 15-17.8. Drivers to Exercise Due Care: Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary and shall exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or any confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway. ’ ’ ’ Plaintiffs-appellants’ instruction No. 21: “The Traffic Code of”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.