Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 623 S.W.2d 582 - Ogle v. Webb

Ogle v. Webb’s Empirical Analysis

1981

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently July 2004

9 state decisions

40198119902000decided

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 Lafferty v. Wattle · Worley Ex Rel. Worley v. Tucker Nevils, Inc. · Wilson v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad · Certa v. Associated Building Center, Inc. · Tucker v. Blankenmeier

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

  1. “In your verdict you must assess a percentage of fault to plaintiff Michael Ruzicka, whether or not defendant was partly at fault, if you believe: First, plaintiff Michael Ruzicka operated his equipment at a slow speed in a lane reserved for moving traffic, and Second, the speed at which plaintiff Michael Ruzicka operated his equipment was a speed which would impede the reasonable movement of traffic, and Third, the operation of said equipment by plaintiff Michael Ruzicka in said lane at a slow speed was not reasonably necessary for safe operation of his equipment, and Fourth, plaintiff Michael Ruzicka was thereby negligent, and Fifth, such negligence of plaintiff Michael Ruzicka directly caused or directly contributed to cause any damage plaintiff may have sustained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “defendant failed to keep a careful lookout, or defendant knew or by the use of the highest degree of care could have known that there was a reasonable likelihood of collision in time thereafter to have stopped, or swerved, slackened his speed, or sounded a warning, or slackened his speed and swerved, or slackened his speed and sounded a warning, or swerved and sounded a warning, but defendant failed to do so, and Second, defendant, in any one or more of the respects submitted in paragraph First, was thereby negligent, and Third, as a direct result of such negligence, plaintiff sustained damage.”
    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.