Fester v. George’s Empirical Analysis
1946
Citation profile
23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently November 1982
23 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 Ward v. . Clark · Jamieson v. Gerth · Smith v. Aspaas · Mills v. Armstrong
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘ * * * in determining the right of way it is without legal significance which car actually entered the intersection first if it appears that the vehicles approached or entered the intersection at approximately the same time. It follows that the single fact that plaintiff entered the intersection first, did not give him a right of precedence over defendant. The controlling issue is whether the two cars were approaching or entering the intersection at approximately the same time; if they were, the plaintiff being on the left,, should have yielded to the defendant; if they were not, no question of right of way is presented. The parties are approaching the intersection at ‘approximately -the same time’ whenever the two vehicles are in such a relative position that upon appraisal of all the factors in the situation it should appear to a man of ordinary prudence approaching from the left that there is danger of collision if he fails to yield the right of way.” 25 N.W.2d at page 456 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ <* * * With the plaintiff’s car 40 feet away, and the defendant’s eighty, there appeared to be sufficient clearance. So, at least, a reasonable man might not unreasonably believe. Sudden acceleration of the defendant’s speed was not to be foreseen. * * * r * * * “ ‘The privilege thus conferred [by the statute] is not inflexible and abso lute. A right of way, like a burden of ■proof, will establish precedence when rights might otherwise be balanced. It ■helps us little when without it the balance would be unequal. A right of way might turn the scales if, when the plaintiff started to cross, the cars had been equi-distant, or nearly so, from the point of the collision, due regard being had also for the speed of their approach. Even with the distances what they were, it was an element which the triers of the facts were to consider in their estimate of conduct. * * Fester v. George, 25 N.W. 2d 455 , at page 457.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Coughran v. Hickox“The parties are approaching the intersection at 'approximately the same time' whenever the two vehicles are in such a relative position that upon an appraisal of all the factors in the situation it should appear to a man of ordinary prudence approaching from the left that there is danger of collision if he fails to yield the right of way.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Yost v. Yost
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.