148 N.J. Super. 202 - Polyard v. Terry’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
7 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Kolitch v. Lindedahl (1985), Waterson v. General Motors Corp. (1988)
7 district · 24 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 Nieder v. Royal Indemnity Insurance · 21 Wis. 2d 182 - Pierringer v. Hoger · Winberry v. Salisbury · Theobald v. Angelos · 129 N.J. Super. 192 - Markey v. Skog
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It would certainly have been mere speculation and conjecture to attempt division of damages for failure to wear seat belts in this case where death occurred and even defendant's medical witness did not attempt an apportionment. Would the jury be asked for this purpose to consider damages as if plaintiff had not died? This question answers itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]here might be circumstances where the failure to wear seat belts may be shown by evidence to have substantially contributed to the injury occurring as the result of an accident, justifying an apportionment of damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the application of general principles of jury trials makes it clear that it is a jury question of whether or not the State's actions were `palpably unreasonable' ... except in cases where reasonable men could not differ.”
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.