98 So. 2d 534 - Litton v. Samuel’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently December 1971
9 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 Rottman v. Beverly · Burns v. Evans Cooperage Co. · Cassar v. Mansfield Lumber Co. · Hollabaugh-Seale Funeral Home, Inc. v. Standard Acc. Ins. · Kennedy v. Opdenweyer
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.
““The question thus presented is whether the last clear chance doctrine is applicable under the circumstances related. This rule of law imposes upon one discovering the peril of another, brought about by the negligence of the other, the duty of taking every reasonable and prudent precaution to save the other from the consequences of his negligent acts. The party discovering the peril, however, can be held to do no more than what a normally reasonable and prudent man would do under the emergency of the situation and he will not be held to unerring judgment. Under this statement of law there can be no recovery against defendant where he exercised due care in discovering peril, and after discovering it, could not have avoided the accident. Myers v. Maricelli, La.App.1951, 50 So.2d 312 ; Dupuy v. Veazey, La.App.1953, 63 So. 2d 756 . Generally speaking, the last clear chance doctrine is inapplicable where the negligence of the driver of plaintiff’s vehicle continued to the moment of the accident. Hollabaugh-Seale Funeral Home v. Standard Accident Insurance Co., 1949, 215 La. 545 , 41 So.2d 212 . This general rule of in applicability, however, is subject to an exception in certain instances and it is sometimes held that contributory negligence is not always a bar to recovery, even though plaintiff’s negligence continues to the moment of the accident. Rottman v. Beverly, 1935-1936, 183 La. 947 , 165 So. 153 ; Cassar v. Mansfield Lumber Co., Inc., 1949, 215 La. 533 , 41 So.2d 209 . Th”
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.