Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 N.M. 176 - Seele v. Purcell

Seele v. Purcell’s Empirical Analysis

1941

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
3
states following
October 1993
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1993

21 state decisions

60194119501960197019801990decided

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 127 Ohio St. 351 - Uncapher v. Baltimore & Ohio Rd. Co. · Crocker v. Johnston · Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Webb · Eubanks v. Kielsmeier · Ingle v. . Cassady

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 general rule of law is that a person who is placed in a position of peril is required to use all diligence to extricate himself therefrom, and that his failure so to do precludes a recovery. There is an exception to this general rule which the courts have recognized and declared, and that is that where a person is suddenly placed in a position of peril or serious danger, and he becomes so excited or frightened that he is unable to deliberate upon the safety of the comparative courses which are open to him, he is not required to act with that degree of prudence which would otherwise be obligatory, and, under those facts, a person is not necessarily chargeable with negligence for doing, or failing to do, that which would be required of him under ordinary circumstances. The appellee testified that he was greatly excited and badly frightened, and it was for the jury to determine whether or not he was, under such conditions, negligent. * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Acts in Emergencies. Where the operator of a motor vehicle is by a sudden emergency placed in a- position of imminent peril to himself or to another, without sufficient time in which to determine with certainty the best course to pursue, he is not held to the same accuracy of judgment as is required of him under ordinary circumstances, and is not liable for injuries caused by his machine or precluded from recovering for injuries to himself or his machine if an accident occurs, even though a course of action other than that which he pursues might be more judicious, provided he exercises ordinary care in the stress of circumstances to avoid an accident.” See also, 60 C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 257.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “"Where the automobilist created the emergency, or brought about the perilous situation, through his own negligence, he cannot avoid liability for an injury on the ground that his acts were done in the stress of emergency."”
    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.