DeVerniero v. Eby’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently April 1997 · most notably Brandenburger v. Toyota Motor Sales, U. S. A., Inc. (1973), Jim's Excavating Service, Inc. v. HKM Associates (1994)
42 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 Autio v. Miller · Sztaba v. Great Northern Railway Co. · Stroud v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. · Wolf v. Barry O'Leary, Inc. · 3 Utah 2d 180 - Bates v. Burns
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“" Vehicle approaching or entering intersection. (1) When two vehicles enter or approach an intersection from different highways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left shall yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right."”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Defendant’s failure to yield the right of way constituted both statutorily recognized duty and breach of that duty. It is clear that by statutory directive automobiles approaching or entering an intersection are accorded the status of favored and disfavored drivers to facilitate the orderly movement of automobiles.” (Emphasis added.) 159 Mont. at 151 , 496 P.2d at 292 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Proximate cause is a twofold legal concept which may limit liability depending upon the existence of (1) an intervening act and (2) the unforeseeability of that intervening act ... "`Causation is a fact. It is important to determine causation first to avoid its confusion with the issues to follow. This is not a relationship between negligence and injury, but rather a causal relation between conduct and hurt, both of which are factual concepts. It is only after the causal relationship, duty, and its scope are found that the negligence issue is reached. [Citation omitted.] "`The test most generally employed in determining causation is the "but for" test. Montana has adopted this test in numerous cases. "`Proximate cause is one "which in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new, independent cause, produces the injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred." [Citation omitted.]'" 159 Mont. at 152-53 , 496 P.2d at 293 . (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Green v. Hagele
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.