Davis v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently May 2004 · most notably Campbell v. Superior Court (1971), Orlando v. Northcutt (1968)
30 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 · Nichols v. Baker · Noland v. Wootan · State of Arizona v. Duguid · Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[6, 7] We believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to create a question of fact for the jury as to whether the defendant was intoxicated to such an extent that the risk of being a guest in her car was an obvious danger. It would then be the jury’s prerogative to decide whether to believe the plaintiff’s disavowal of any knowledge of the risk. See Ariz.Const. Art. 18, § 5; Nichols v. Baker, 101 Ariz. 151 , 416 P.2d 584 (1966); Miller v. George F. Cook Construction Co., 91 Ariz. 80 , 370 P.2d 53 (1962). Consequently the trial court did not commit error when it granted an instruction on assumption of risk.” [Emphasis added] Davis v. Waters, 103 Ariz. 87 at 90 , 436 P.2d 906 at 909 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““We believe it does not follow that merely because a person has been drinking alcoholic beverage that the person was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Noland v. Wootan, 102 Ariz. 192 , 427 P.2d 143 (1967) [Additional citations omitted]. In Noland v. Wootan, supra, we restated the rule in this state that a person is driving under the influence of intoxicants if his control of his vehicle is to the slightest degree affected by his consumption of the intoxicant. (Emphasis Theirs).” 103 Ariz. at 90 , 436 P.2d at 909 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““(t)he defense of contributory negligence * * * shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.””
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.