Doll v. Treiber’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently February 1997
2 federal appellate · 7 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 Dehaan v. Wolff · Clark v. Josephson · Lostegaard v. Bauer · Ekren v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co. · Schaller v. Bjornstad
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.
““Stormy nights, dusty roads, passing vehicles, distracting circumstances, sudden emergencies, are all nonexistent. His lights were good, the car could be controlled, the road was wide and in excellent condition. The physical facts are such that no conclusion can be reached but that of carelessness, heedlessness, and negligence of the driver of plaintiff’s car; that this was the real cause of the accident, or so contributed to it that without it no collision could have occurred.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]here was no reason, in the exercise of due care, why the plaintiff should not have seen the truck and brought his car under control to avoid the collision . . . .”
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.