Casey v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 1990 · most notably Gray v. Woods (1958), DeMontiney v. Desert Manor Convalescent Center Inc. (1985)
4 federal appellate · 52 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 Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Ives · Webb v. Hardin · Lutfy v. Lockhart · Keystone Copper Mining Co. v. Miller · Center v. Yellow Cab Co.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"While the driver of defendants' automobile stated that he did not see plaintiff's automobile until practically the instant of the collision, the jury had a right to infer, under the circumstances, that he should have seen the automobile. Presumably he was looking where he was driving. The street was well lighted. There were no obstructions. We believe the doctrine `to look is to see' would have relevancy here. Barry v. Southern Pacific Co., 64 Ariz. 116 , 166 P.2d 825, 829 . In that case we said: `* * * We believe that the so-called rule "to look is to see" is a necessary and salutary rule, but it can have no application in the instant case. If plaintiff had been upright and could have been seen clearly by the exercise of reasonable care, we think the rule would apply.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"* * * The rule has been established in this court that instructions which go to the gist of the action, and which are justified by the evidence, must be given. Lutfy v. Lockhart, 37 Ariz. 488 , 295 P. 975 ; Webb v. Hardin [ 53 Ariz. 310 , 89 P.2d 30 ], supra. See also Brown v. Yocum, 113 Cal. App. 621 , 298 P. 845 . Failure to do so constitutes reversible error."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"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 "(i) knows of the plaintiff's situation and realizes the helpless peril involved therein; or "(ii) knows of the plaintiff's situation and has reason to realize the peril involved therein, or "(iii) would have discovered the plaintiff's situation and thus had reason to realize the plaintiff's helpless peril had he exercised the vigilance which it was his duty to the plaintiff to exercise, and "(c) thereafter is negligent in failing to utilize with reasonable care and competence his then existing ability to avoid harming the plaintiff."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Trauscht v. Lamb
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.