Street v. Calvert’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably McIntyre v. Balentine (1992), Eaton v. McLain (1994)
9 federal appellate · 42 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 13 Cal. 3d 804 - Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co. · 280 So. 2d 431 - Hoffman v. Jones · Bryan v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. · Kaatz v. State · McClard v. Reid
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We define it as that negligence which is too far removed as to time or place, or causative force, to be a direct or proximate cause of the accident. We suggest that an appropriate charge would state the foregoing definition and add: ‘If you find the plaintiff guilty of such remote contributory negligence, you must reduce the recovery which you would otherwise award, in proportion to plaintiff’s contribution to the injury.’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is our opinion that the rules governing all aspects of the last clear chance doctrine are best stated in the Restatement of the Law, Torts, 2d §§ 479, 480. We adopt said sections as the law in Tennessee governing last clear chance and overrule all the cases in conflict with the principles contained therein. The text of said sections are as follows: ‘§ 479. Last Clear Chance: Helpless Plaintiff. ‘A plaintiff who has negligently subjected himself to a risk of harm from the defendant’s subsequent negligence may recover for harm caused thereby if, immediately preceding the harm, ‘(a) the plaintiff is unable to avoid it by the exercise of reasonable vigilance and care, and, ‘(b) the defendant is negligent in failing to utilize with reasonable care and competence his then existing opportunity to avoid the harm, when he ‘(i) knows of the plaintiff’s situation and realizes or has reason to realize the peril involved in it or ‘(ii) would discover the situation and thus have reason to realize the peril, if he were to exercise the vigilance which it is then his duty to the plaintiff to exercise. ‘§ 480. Last Clear Chance: Inattentive Plaintiff. ‘A plaintiff who, by the exercise of reasonable vigilance, could discover the danger created by the defendant’s negligence in time to avoid the harm to him, can recover if, but only if, the defendant ‘(a) knows of the plaintiff’s situation, and ‘(b) realizes or has reason to realize that the plaintiff is inattentive and therefore unlikely to ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“We do not deem it appropriate to consider making such a change unless and until a case reaches us wherein the pleadings and proof present an issue of contributory negligence accompanied by advocacy that the ends of justice will be served by adopting the rule of comparative negligence.”
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.