Mathers v. Botsford’s Empirical Analysis
1923
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently August 2003 · most notably 2 Ill. 2d 511 - Duffy v. Cortesi (1954), Morehouse v. City of Everett (1926)
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 White Swan Laundry Co. v. Wehrhan · Wellington v. Reynolds · Weidner v. Otter · Lovett v. Scott · Emery v. Miller
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While it may be negligence for a driver of an automobile to permit the bright lights on his car to obscure or obstruct' the vision of the. driver of another car on the public highway, yet this does not relieve the driver of the other ear of the duty to ' exercise due care required by the circumstances, and even to stop if that is reasonably required to avoid injury to persons who may lawfully be on tbe road but whose presence is not known to the .driver because of the blinding lights on another vehicle then approaching.” See Mathers v. Botsford (Fla.), 32 A. L. R., 881, ( 97 So. 282 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Davis v. Farris
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.