Lockridge v. Mercer’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2009
1 federal appellate · 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 Conley v. Foster · Weaver v. Brooks · Miller v. Miller · Hainline v. Hukill · Baker v. Sizemore Ex Rel. Sizemore
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is next contended that the instructions erroneously required plaintiff driver to keep a reasonable lookout to the rear and not to make a turn without ascertaining such movement could be made with reasonable safety. It is apparently appellants’ position that this duty should have been limited to the time when the driver was required to give a signal, which was at least 100 feet before actually turning. The argument is that once a driver has given a signal to make a left turn, he no longer has any duty to ascertain whether the turning will reasonably affect the operation of a following vehicle. We know of no reason or authority for such a proposition. The flashing of a turning signal does not discharge all of the duties of a motorist. KRS 189.380(1) provides that no person shall turn a vehicle (from a direct course upon a highway) unless such movement can be made with reasonable safety. Clearly this imposes a continuing duty on a motorist, after giving his signal, to observe traffic conditions both fore and aft up to the time of actual turning. The subject of lookout for vehicles approaching from the rear was discussed in Hainline v. Hukill, Ky., 383 S.W.2d 353 . In addition of course, KRS 189.290 requires a motorist to operate his vehicle in a careful manner at all times.” It would seem this forecloses the question of whether or not this statute requires the driver of a left turning vehicle to make certain that the left lane is clear of passing vehicles immediately before ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. West v. Luchesi“could not have misled the jury with respect to the basic issue involved”
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.