Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 129 Colo. 484 - Pettingell v. Moede

Pettingell v. Moede’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

86
cited by 86 later decisions
4
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 20 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably People v. Marcy (1981), Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. (1979)

9 federal appellate · 20 district · 57 state decisions

2001954196019701980199020002010decided

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 Clark v. Hicks · Foster v. Redding · Millington v. Hiedloff · Fanstiel v. Wright · Clark v. Small

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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “voluntary; by choice; intentional; purposeful”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As used in this section, “willful and wanton conduct” means conduct purposefully committed which the actor must have realized as dangerous, done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to consequences, or of the rights and safety of others, particularly the plaintiff.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The word wanton is defined in Webster’s New International Dictionary (2d ed.) as “Marked by or manifesting arrogant recklessness of justice, of the rights or feelings of others, or the like....” To be “wilful and wanton” there must be some affirmative act purposefully committed which the actor must have realized as dangerous, done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to consequences, or of the rights and safety of others.... The demarcation between ordinary negligence and willful and wanton disregard is that in the latter the actor was fully aware of the danger and should have realized its probable consequences, yet deliberately avoided all precaution to prevent disaster.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.