Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 661 A2D 1095 - Fisher v. Best

Fisher v. Best’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

3 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently July 2013

3 district · 10 state decisions

60199520002010decided

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 Geders v. United States · Achilli v. United States · Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Yeatts · Monrote v. Britton · Taylor v. Fitzpatrick

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

  1. “[W]hen acting on a motion for new trial, the trial judge need not view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. “Indeed, the judge can, in effect, be the ‘thirteenth juror’; he [or she] may ‘weigh evidence, disbelieve witnesses, and grant a new trial even where there is substantial evidence to sustain the verdict.’ ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a collision does not necessarily imply negligence on the rear driver’s part, ... and the issue is ordinarily for the jury. Nevertheless, it has been held that in the absence of emergency or unusual conditions, the following driver is negligent if he collides with the forward vehicle. The nature of a rear-end collision is such that it alone may suggest negligence of the driver of the striking vehicle to a degree that she may be found negligent as a matter of law.... Where a lawfully stopped vehicle is struck by another car from the rear, there is a rebuttable presumption that the approaching vehicle was negligently operated.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The driver of a vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of the vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the roadway.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.