last clear chance doctrine in New Mexico

13 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1937–1993 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (1)

Case	Followed	Cited
Floeck v. Hoovergreen nm · 1948 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1957–1960 2 sentences 1960Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Blewett v. Barnes, 62 N.M. 300 , 309 P.2d 976 . 1960Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Blewett v. Barnes, 62 N.M. 300 , 309 P.2d 976 .	1	2

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (38)

Case	Cited	Years
Sanchez v. Gomez green nm · 1953 2 sentences 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 . 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 .	4	1957–1963
Merrill v. Stringer green nm · 1954 2 sentences 1960Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Blewett v. Barnes, 62 N.M. 300 , 309 P.2d 976 . 1960Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Blewett v. Barnes, 62 N.M. 300 , 309 P.2d 976 .	2	1957–1960
Scott v. Rizzo red nm · 1981 2 sentences 1993Id. at 687 , 634 P.2d at 1239 . 1993Id. at 687 , 634 P.2d at 1239 .	1	1993–1993
Montoya v. Williamson green nm · 1968 2 sentences 1978Montoya v. Williamson, 79 N.M. 566 , 446 P.2d 214 (1968). 1978Montoya v. Williamson, 79 N.M. 566 , 446 P.2d 214 (1968).	1	1978–1978
Catalano v. Lewis green nmctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1978If the evidence in the case of Lewis v. English, supra, [the instant case], is supplemented on the issues decided in this case, this opinion shall not control, otherwise it shall control. . [Emphasis added.] [ 90 N.M. at 218 , 561 P.2d at 491 .] The purpose of this language was to avoid the doctrine of res judicata and to accord English a second opportunity to proceed against Lewis under the doctrine of last clear chance. 1978If the evidence in the case of Lewis v. English, supra, [the instant case], is supplemented on the issues decided in this case, this opinion shall not control, otherwise it shall control. . [Emphasis added.] [ 90 N.M. at 218 , 561 P.2d at 491 .] The purpose of this language was to avoid the doctrine of res judicata and to accord English a second opportunity to proceed against Lewis under the doctrine of last clear chance.	1	1978–1978
Meadow Gold Products Co., a Corporation v. Harry W. Wright green cadc · 1960 2 sentences 1974Directly in point is Meadow Gold Products Co. v. Wright, 108 App.D.C. 33 , 278 F.2d 867 (1960). 1974Directly in point is Meadow Gold Products Co. v. Wright, 108 App.D.C. 33 , 278 F.2d 867 (1960).	1	1974–1974
McMinn v. Thompson green nm · 1956 2 sentences 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 . 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 .	1	1963–1963
Davis v. Jones neutral nm · 1956 2 sentences 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 . 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 .	1	1963–1963
State v. Smith green nm · 1947 2 sentences 1963Section 21-1-1(51) (g), N.M.S.A., 1953 Anno.; State v. Smith, 51 N.M. 328 , 184 P.2d 301 ; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227 , 257 P.2d 915 ; Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105 . 1963Section 21-1-1(51) (g), N.M.S.A., 1953 Anno.; State v. Smith, 51 N.M. 328 , 184 P.2d 301 ; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227 , 257 P.2d 915 ; Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105 .	1	1963–1963
Tiedebohl v. Springer green nm · 1951 2 sentences 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 . 1963On the applicability of the last clear chance doctrine, see Tiedebohl v. Springer, 55 N.M. 295 , 232 P.2d 694 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Davis v. Jones, 60 N.M. 470 , 292 P.2d 773 ; McMinn v. Thompson, 61 N.M. 387 , 301 P.2d 326 .	1	1963–1963
Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Company green nm · 1955 2 sentences 1963Section 21-1-1(51) (g), N.M.S.A., 1953 Anno.; State v. Smith, 51 N.M. 328 , 184 P.2d 301 ; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227 , 257 P.2d 915 ; Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105 . 1963Section 21-1-1(51) (g), N.M.S.A., 1953 Anno.; State v. Smith, 51 N.M. 328 , 184 P.2d 301 ; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227 , 257 P.2d 915 ; Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105 .	1	1963–1963
State v. Compton green nm · 1953 2 sentences 1963Section 21-1-1(51) (g), N.M.S.A., 1953 Anno.; State v. Smith, 51 N.M. 328 , 184 P.2d 301 ; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227 , 257 P.2d 915 ; Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105 . 1963Section 21-1-1(51) (g), N.M.S.A., 1953 Anno.; State v. Smith, 51 N.M. 328 , 184 P.2d 301 ; State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227 , 257 P.2d 915 ; Gerrard v. Harvey & Newman Drilling Co., 59 N.M. 262 , 282 P.2d 1105 .	1	1963–1963
Lucero Ex Rel. Lucero v. Torres green nm · 1960 2 sentences 1962Lucero v. Torres, 67 N.M. 10 , 350 P.2d 1028 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 . 1962Lucero v. Torres, 67 N.M. 10 , 350 P.2d 1028 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 .	1	1962–1962
Blewett v. Barnes neutral nm · 1957 2 sentences 1960Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Blewett v. Barnes, 62 N.M. 300 , 309 P.2d 976 . 1960Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Blewett v. Barnes, 62 N.M. 300 , 309 P.2d 976 .	1	1960–1960
Burlie v. Stephens green wash · 1920 2 sentences 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins. 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins.	1	1960–1960
Hynek v. City of Seattle green wash · 1941 2 sentences 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins. 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins.	1	1960–1960
Colwell v. Nygaard neutral wash · 1941 2 sentences 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins. 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins.	1	1960–1960
Hartley v. Lasater green wash · 1917 2 sentences 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins. 1960Hartley v. Lasater, 96 Wash. 407 , 165 P. 106 ; Burlie v. Stephens, 113 Wash. 182 , 193 P. 684 ; Hynek v. Seattle, 7 Wash.2d 386 , 111 P.2d 247 ; Colwell v. Nygaard, 8 Wash.2d 462 , 112 P.2d 838 .” See, also, Lapuyade v. Pacific Employers Ins.	1	1960–1960
Erickson v. Barnes green wash · 1940 2 sentences 1959The Supreme Court of Washington had a very similar state of facts before it in Erickson v. Barnes, 1940, 6 Wash. 2d 251 , 107 P.2d 348, 353 , and it stated: “When two drivers collide head-on after approaching each other on a straight, unobstructed highway, one traveling in his proper lane and the other not, it is difficult to imagine how the doctrine of last clear chance can be applied to the driver who was in his proper lane. 1959The Supreme Court of Washington had a very similar state of facts before it in Erickson v. Barnes, 1940, 6 Wash. 2d 251 , 107 P.2d 348, 353 , and it stated: “When two drivers collide head-on after approaching each other on a straight, unobstructed highway, one traveling in his proper lane and the other not, it is difficult to imagine how the doctrine of last clear chance can be applied to the driver who was in his proper lane.	1	1959–1959
Le Doux v. Martinez green nm · 1953 2 sentences 1957See, Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; LeDoux v. Martinez, 57 N.M. 86 , 254 P.2d 685 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405, 407 . 1957See, Floeck v. Hoover, 52 N.M. 193 , 195 P.2d 86 ; LeDoux v. Martinez, 57 N.M. 86 , 254 P.2d 685 ; Sanchez v. Gomez, 57 N.M. 383 , 259 P.2d 346 ; Merrill v. Stringer, 58 N.M. 372 , 271 P.2d 405, 407 .	1	1957–1957
Rasmussen v. Fresno Traction Co. green calctapp · 1936 2 sentences 1954In the second situation the respondents’ negligence must have terminated if the appellants did not actually see the peril, but by the exercise of reasonable care should have seen it.” In Rasmussen v. Fresno Traction Co., 15 Cal.App.2d 356 , 59 P.2d 617, 620 , the court said: " * * * While it has always been held that the rule did not apply unless the defendant actually knew that the plaintiff was in a position of danger, it has more recently been held that the jury is not required to take the defendant’s word that he did not see but that, under proper circumstances, the jury may find that he d 1954In the second situation the respondents’ negligence must have terminated if the appellants did not actually see the peril, but by the exercise of reasonable care should have seen it.” In Rasmussen v. Fresno Traction Co., 15 Cal.App.2d 356 , 59 P.2d 617, 620 , the court said: " * * * While it has always been held that the rule did not apply unless the defendant actually knew that the plaintiff was in a position of danger, it has more recently been held that the jury is not required to take the defendant’s word that he did not see but that, under proper circumstances, the jury may find that he d	1	1954–1954
Smith v. Gamp neutral wash · 1934 1 sentence 1954The court held otherwise, saying ( 199 Cal. 545 , 250 P. 569 ) : 'If the defendant in this case was looking straight ahead, as he testified that he was, he must have seen the plaintiff.’ ” (Emphasis ours.) In Smith v. Gamp, supra [ 178 Wash. 451 , 35 P.2d 41 ], the court held: “ ‘Thus we have two different situations to which the last clear chance rule applies.	1	1954–1954
Gillette v. City of San Francisco green calctapp · 1943 1 sentence 1954In Gillette v. City, etc. supra, the court in discussing just such a situation, [ 58 Cal.App.2d 434 , 136 P.2d 615 ] said: “The courts have held repeatedly that it is a question of fact for the jury to determine from all the circumstances presented by the evidence whether the defendant actually knew of the plaintiff’s peril; and that notwithstanding there may be a total absence of any positive testimony that the defendant actually knew of plaintiff’s danger, and even though the defendant definitely denies seeing the plaintiff at all, the doctrine of the last clear chance may be invoked and app	1	1954–1954
Hoy v. Tornich green cal · 1926 1 sentence 1954The court held otherwise, saying ( 199 Cal. 545 , 250 P. 569 ) : 'If the defendant in this case was looking straight ahead, as he testified that he was, he must have seen the plaintiff.’ ” (Emphasis ours.) In Smith v. Gamp, supra [ 178 Wash. 451 , 35 P.2d 41 ], the court held: “ ‘Thus we have two different situations to which the last clear chance rule applies.	1	1954–1954
Center v. Yellow Cab Co. green cal · 1932 2 sentences 1953It is in accordance with this principle that the question of whether a pedestrian who negligently crosses a street in the middle of the block should recover for injuries sustained when struck by a taxicab was held a question for the jury under the last clear chance doctrine in Center v. Yellow Cab Co. of Los Angeles, 1932, 216 Cal. 205 , 13 P.2d 918 , a case which is in many respects identical with the one at bar. 1953It is in accordance with this principle that the question of whether a pedestrian who negligently crosses a street in the middle of the block should recover for injuries sustained when struck by a taxicab was held a question for the jury under the last clear chance doctrine in Center v. Yellow Cab Co. of Los Angeles, 1932, 216 Cal. 205 , 13 P.2d 918 , a case which is in many respects identical with the one at bar.	1	1953–1953
Heskamp v. Bradshaw's Adm'r green kyctapphigh · 1943 2 sentences 1953Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 1931, 112 Cal.App. 636 , 297 P. 128 ; Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 24 , 102 F.2d 628 ; Heskamp v. Bradshaw’s Adm’r, 1943, 294 Ky. 618 , 172 S.W.2d 447 ; Hantel v. Service Drayage Co., La.App.1938, 177 So. 425 ; Langley v. Viguerie, La.App. 1939, 189 So. 606 ; Stansbury v. Drillon, La.App.1941, 2 So.2d 662 ; Muller v. Phillips, La.App. 1945, 20 So.2d 443 ; Blunk v. Snider, 1937, 342 Mo. 26 , 111 S.W.2d 163 ; Melenson v. Howell, 1939, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555 . 1953Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 1931, 112 Cal.App. 636 , 297 P. 128 ; Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 24 , 102 F.2d 628 ; Heskamp v. Bradshaw’s Adm’r, 1943, 294 Ky. 618 , 172 S.W.2d 447 ; Hantel v. Service Drayage Co., La.App.1938, 177 So. 425 ; Langley v. Viguerie, La.App. 1939, 189 So. 606 ; Stansbury v. Drillon, La.App.1941, 2 So.2d 662 ; Muller v. Phillips, La.App. 1945, 20 So.2d 443 ; Blunk v. Snider, 1937, 342 Mo. 26 , 111 S.W.2d 163 ; Melenson v. Howell, 1939, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555 .	1	1953–1953
Stansbury v. Drillon neutral lactapp · 1941	1	1953–1953
Langley v. Viguerie green lactapp · 1939 1 sentence 1953Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 1931, 112 Cal.App. 636 , 297 P. 128 ; Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 24 , 102 F.2d 628 ; Heskamp v. Bradshaw’s Adm’r, 1943, 294 Ky. 618 , 172 S.W.2d 447 ; Hantel v. Service Drayage Co., La.App.1938, 177 So. 425 ; Langley v. Viguerie, La.App. 1939, 189 So. 606 ; Stansbury v. Drillon, La.App.1941, 2 So.2d 662 ; Muller v. Phillips, La.App. 1945, 20 So.2d 443 ; Blunk v. Snider, 1937, 342 Mo. 26 , 111 S.W.2d 163 ; Melenson v. Howell, 1939, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555 .	1	1953–1953
Muller v. Phillips neutral lactapp · 1945	1	1953–1953
Hantel v. Service Drayage Co. neutral lactapp · 1937	1	1953–1953
Russell v. Davis green nm · 1934	1	1953–1953
Blunk v. Snider green · 1937	1	1953–1953
Melenson v. Howell green mo · 1939	1	1953–1953
Mansperger v. Ehrnfield neutral ohioctapp · 1937	1	1953–1953
Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, Inc. neutral cadc · 1939 2 sentences 1953Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 1931, 112 Cal.App. 636 , 297 P. 128 ; Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 24 , 102 F.2d 628 ; Heskamp v. Bradshaw’s Adm’r, 1943, 294 Ky. 618 , 172 S.W.2d 447 ; Hantel v. Service Drayage Co., La.App.1938, 177 So. 425 ; Langley v. Viguerie, La.App. 1939, 189 So. 606 ; Stansbury v. Drillon, La.App.1941, 2 So.2d 662 ; Muller v. Phillips, La.App. 1945, 20 So.2d 443 ; Blunk v. Snider, 1937, 342 Mo. 26 , 111 S.W.2d 163 ; Melenson v. Howell, 1939, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555 . 1953Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 1931, 112 Cal.App. 636 , 297 P. 128 ; Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 24 , 102 F.2d 628 ; Heskamp v. Bradshaw’s Adm’r, 1943, 294 Ky. 618 , 172 S.W.2d 447 ; Hantel v. Service Drayage Co., La.App.1938, 177 So. 425 ; Langley v. Viguerie, La.App. 1939, 189 So. 606 ; Stansbury v. Drillon, La.App.1941, 2 So.2d 662 ; Muller v. Phillips, La.App. 1945, 20 So.2d 443 ; Blunk v. Snider, 1937, 342 Mo. 26 , 111 S.W.2d 163 ; Melenson v. Howell, 1939, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555 .	1	1953–1953
Bence v. Teddy's Taxi green calctapp · 1931 2 sentences 1953Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 1931, 112 Cal.App. 636 , 297 P. 128 ; Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 24 , 102 F.2d 628 ; Heskamp v. Bradshaw’s Adm’r, 1943, 294 Ky. 618 , 172 S.W.2d 447 ; Hantel v. Service Drayage Co., La.App.1938, 177 So. 425 ; Langley v. Viguerie, La.App. 1939, 189 So. 606 ; Stansbury v. Drillon, La.App.1941, 2 So.2d 662 ; Muller v. Phillips, La.App. 1945, 20 So.2d 443 ; Blunk v. Snider, 1937, 342 Mo. 26 , 111 S.W.2d 163 ; Melenson v. Howell, 1939, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555 . 1953Bence v. Teddy’s Taxi, 1931, 112 Cal.App. 636 , 297 P. 128 ; Boaze v. Windridge & Handy, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 24 , 102 F.2d 628 ; Heskamp v. Bradshaw’s Adm’r, 1943, 294 Ky. 618 , 172 S.W.2d 447 ; Hantel v. Service Drayage Co., La.App.1938, 177 So. 425 ; Langley v. Viguerie, La.App. 1939, 189 So. 606 ; Stansbury v. Drillon, La.App.1941, 2 So.2d 662 ; Muller v. Phillips, La.App. 1945, 20 So.2d 443 ; Blunk v. Snider, 1937, 342 Mo. 26 , 111 S.W.2d 163 ; Melenson v. Howell, 1939, 344 Mo. 1137 , 130 S.W.2d 555 .	1	1953–1953
Olguin v. Thygesen green nm · 1943	1	1951–1951
Baker v. Wilmington & Weldon R. R. neutral nc · 1896	1	1937–1937

Where else courts name it

LA 211 (1911–2024) CA 198 (1913–2013) NC 88 (1900–2024) KY 72 (1929–1985) WA 67 (1908–1975) FL 52 (1937–2013) VA 50 (1911–2018) MD 47 (1921–2013) IN 45 (1906–2020) GA 39 (1947–2012) NE 32 (1934–2000) CT 28 (1919–1978) AZ 28 (1946–2001) IA 26 (1916–1994) KS 26 (1911–1976) WV 24 (1928–2001) MI 23 (1929–1995) NY 22 (1930–1997) ID 20 (1928–1990) OK 19 (1908–1978) DC 19 (1953–2016) CO 17 (1914–1973) TN 16 (1925–2017) SC 15 (1951–2006) MO 14 (1906–2002) NM 13 (1937–1993) MT 13 (1919–1996) UT 12 (1919–1971) WY 11 (1939–1985) OR 10 (1914–1972) DE 9 (1938–2018) VT 9 (1915–1980) AR 7 (1933–1961) SD 7 (1941–1983) OH 7 (1919–2011) TX 7 (1944–2016) NV 6 (1915–1979) MA 6 (1939–1992) ME 5 (1939–1976) RI 5 (1937–1993) NJ 4 (1955–1985) HI 4 (1926–2011) IL 3 (1966–1987) AL 3 (1938–1994) ND 3 (1936–1973) MS 3 (1934–1962) NH 2 (1963–1970) PR 2 (1931–1948)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check