Schmidt v. Gibbons’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently February 1993
21 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 Layton v. Rocha · Trojanovich v. Marshall · Gilbert v. Quinet · Coyner Crop Dusters v. Marsh · 2 Ariz. App. 223 - Bogard GMC Co. v. Henley
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[1] The instruction given in this case contained the phrase ‘the plaintiff is not entitled to recover.’ To entitle, defined by Webster, is ‘to give a right or legal title to.’ Webster’s New Int’l., 2d ed., at 854. Thus, as the instruction stated that the plaintiff ‘is not entitled (has no legal right) to recover’ upon a finding of contributory negligence, the jury is effectually bound to find for the defendant upon a finding of contributory negligence. Therefore, this instruction suffers from the same defect as those above condemned.” 101 Ariz. 222 at 224 , 418 P.2d 378 at 380 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * contributory negligence * * * shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Arizona Constitution, art. 18, § 5, A.R.S. The jury's deliberations were tainted by the constitutionally repugnant instruction. To attain an uncontaminated verdict, a new trial to a properly instructed jury is required. The absence of”
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.