Kinard v. Carter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

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

1. “The trial court had charged the jury that: 21 It's the duty of the owner or the operator of the motor vehicle to see that it's reasonably safe--the vehicle--before operating it on a public highway. And where, however, the owner or operator of the vehicle, without knowledge of a defective condition, known or reasonably aforeseeable [sic], experiences a mechanical failure and such mechanical failure is the sole proximate cause of the injury, or damage, the owner or operator cannot be held liable. 22 Id. at 1251. The Alabama Supreme Court stated that”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Salter v. Westra

2. “[I]f a person, a motorist, without fault of his own is faced with a sudden emergency, he is not held to the same correctness of judgment and action as if he had time and opportunity to fully consider the situation. And the fact--if it be a fact--that he does not choose the best or safest way of escaping peril or preventing injury, it's [sic] not necessarily negligence. But, the standard of care required in an emergency situation is that care which a reasonable and prudent motorist would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Salter v. Westra

3. ““The evidence is without dispute that defendant’s car was equipped with four new tires, that at least one of these tires ‘blew out’ or failed when the object was struck, and that defendant’s car left the highway immediately thereafter and struck plaintiffs’ vehicle. Thus, the defendant experienced a mechanical failure. It was for the jury to decide whether that mechanical failure, or some negligence of the defendant, was the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. Howell v. Birmingham Nehi Bottling Co., 267 Ala. 290 , 101 So.2d 297 (1958).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Clayton v. LLB TIMBER CO., INC.