Athey v. Bingham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

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. “The plaintiff argues that the fact that the plaintiff was rear-ended by the defendant raises the presumption that the defendant violated several rule-of-the-road statutes: 47 O.S.1981 § ll-310(a), 47 O.S.1981 § 11-801(a) and (d). (Footnote omitted.) The cases, however, do not support her argument. The fact that a motor vehicle collision occurred does not necessarily raise the presumption that the defendant was following too close, driving too fast to bring the car to a stop, or driving too fast for highway conditions. [[Image here]] Thus, the mere fact of a collision does not show a violation of the above cited statutes, nor such a showing of negligence that an unavoidable accident instruction would be improper.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rose v. City of Tulsa

2. “icy road conditions, the speed of both drivers, and the speed of other drivers in the stream of traffic, the evidence was sufficient to present as questions of fact the propositions that both parties were driving prudently for the conditions, and that the collision was unavoidable in spite of such prudent driving. The road conditions were comparable to those'in Keiffer [v. Strbac, 1960 OK 14 , 349 P.2d 6 ], Duncan [v. United States, 98 F.Supp. 483 (E.D.Okla.1951) ] and Gwinn [v. Payne, 1970 OK 145 , 477 P.2d 680 ], all supra, where sudden skidding was acknowledged, to occur absent fault on the part of either driver.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rose v. City of Tulsa

3. “As the Court of Civil Appeals correctly held, the instruction woitld have- been error under the facts of this case. Use of the instruction ‘should be restricted to those circumstances where the evidence indicates the occurrence was caused by unforeseen circumstances or conditions and not by the negligence of either party.’ (citation omitted) ... Use of the instruction in this matter was not indicated. The roads were visibly icy during a sleet storm. In addition, USAA’s investigation and evaluation of the claim had always indicated negligence on the part of one or both parties.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rose v. City of Tulsa