97 So. 2d 674 - Johnson v. Wilson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 30 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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"It is the duty of the driver operating an automobile, upon approaching another automobile from the rear while both cars are traveling in the same direction, to exercise a great deal of care. He must look out for the person ahead, realizing that that person is engaged in handling a high-powered machine requiring constant attention and that his lookout is forward and not backward. The driver of the rear car must keep a safe distance behind the front car and must have his machine under such control as to avoid injury to the car ahead or to his own car so long as the driver of the front car is driving in accordance with his rights." 23 So.2d 165, 169 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hinton v. Beyl · 175 So. 2d 418 - Evans v. Thorpe

2. “"Louisiana statute provides as to the overtaking driver: `The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard to the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and condition of the highway,' LSA-R.S. 32.234, subd. A. A vehicle overtaking another `shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof' and `shall give audible and sufficient warning of his intention before overtaking, passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction', LSA-R.S. 32:233, subds. A, B. * * * * * * "As we recently reiterated in Jenkins v. Fidelity & Cas. Co., La.App., 92 So. 2d 120 , at page 123: "`It is well settled in Louisiana that the operator of a motor vehicle who desires to make a left turn, carries the responsibility of being certain that the turn can be made without danger to normal overtaking or oncoming traffic, and he must yield the right of way to such vehicles.' (Italics ours.)"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hinton v. Beyl · 173 So. 2d 308 - Gorum v. Pritchard

3. ““(1) Cases holding that the sole proximate cause of the accident was the negligence of the driver turning left suddenly and/or without signal and in the immediate path of and without yielding the right of way to approaching traffic. * * * [Citations omitted]; or holding that the left-turning driver had the clear chance to avoid the accident, * * * [Citation omitted]. “(2) Cases holding that the negligence of the left-turning driver in doing so without signalling and/or yielding the right of way and/or observing the rear vehicle; and of the overtak ing driver in not making sufficient observation and/or failing to slow and/or continuing to approach the turning vehicle at a high speed; both contributed to the accident so as to bar recovery by either party. * * * [Citations omitted.] “(3) Cases holding free of negligence the left-turning driver, who made proper signal and commenced a left turn upon a reasonable belief after observing approaching traffic that such turn would not unduly interfere with the progress of such approaching traffic despite which an accident occurred; the sole proximate cause of which was held to be the excessive speed, lack of lookout, and/or lack of control on the part of the approaching vehicle in failing to observe the seasonably-sig-nalled left-turn intent of the other vehicle and continuing an approach theretowards without attempting to bring the approaching vehicle under control. * * * [Citations omitted.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burton v. Allstate Insurance Co.