Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 458 SW2D 360 - Friederich v. Chamberlain

Friederich v. Chamberlain’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently April 2006

22 state decisions

1501970198019902000decided

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 Girratono v. Kansas City Public Service Co. · Merrick v. Bridgeways, Inc. · Tharp Ex Rel. Tharp v. Monsees · Holmes v. McNeil · Beezley v. Spiva

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

  1. ““(1) A submissible case cannot be made against an operator of a motor vehicle by proof that it merely skidded into collision with another vehicle on a highway. (2) However, if the skidding vehicle is on the wrong side of the road when the collision occurs, an inference of negligence is created. A prima facie case is made.... (3) The burden of evidence then shifts to the operator of the skidding vehicle to excuse the presence of his vehicle on the wrong side of the road. (4) If no evidence of justification is presented, the question of negligence is for the jury. (5) If evidence of justification is presented, and the operator of the skidding vehicle moves for a directed verdict, the question of negligence is still for the jury unless such ‘evidence produced * * negated that which established the * * * prima facie case so conclusively that no reasonable man could any longer be justified in engaging in the inferences which established the * * * prima facie case.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"Section 304.015, subd. 2, RSMo 1959, V.A.M.S., provides that upon all public roads or highways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway with these exceptions: (1) when overtaking and passing another vehicle, (2) when a vehicle is making a lawful left turn, (3) when the right half is closed to traffic because of construction or repair, and (4) upon a roadway designated for one-way traffic. Laws 1953, p. 587, § 304.020. Under similar statutes, the cases have also recognized `excuses' or `excusable violations' which appear to be of a sort that could not be avoided in the exercise of the highest degree of care as imposed by § 304.010 upon all operations of a motor vehicle. In this category are sudden and unexpected brake failure, blowout of a tire and non-negligent skid."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) A submissible case cannot be made against an operator of a motor vehicle by proof that it merely skidded into collision with another vehicle on a highway. (2) However, if the skidding vehicle is on the wrong side of the road when the collision occurs, an inference of negligence is created. A prima facie case is made.... (3) The burden of evidence then shifts to the operator of the skidding vehicle to excuse the presence of his vehicle on the wrong side of the road. (4) If no evidence of justification is presented, the question of negligence is for the jury.”
    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.