Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 419 SW2D 102 - Clevenger v. Walters

Clevenger v. Walters’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
June 1989
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 1989

14 state decisions

60196719701980decided

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 Hooper Ex Rel. Hooper v. Conrad · Jones v. Central States Oil Co. · Knight Ex Rel. Knight v. Richey · State Ex Rel. Spears v. McCullen · Schutz v. Morris

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

  1. “We will not review all of the cases involving application of the rear-end collision doctrine nor undertake herein to define exactly what are the permissible outer limits of any deviation permitted from the basic premise of a following and overtaking vehicle which runs into the rear end of the lead or front vehicle which is traveling in the same direction at a place where it has a right to be. This can be determined satisfactorily only on a case by case basis, but we repeat the caveat ...: "It is not recommended that this theory of recovery be employed except where the facts come strictly within the pattern of the typical rear-end collision situation."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “It is not recommended that this theory of recovery be employed except where the facts come strictly within the pattern of the typical rear-end collision situation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]his is not the classic case where plaintiff is proceeding directly ahead in his proper lane and defendant runs into the rear end of his vehicle.”
    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.