Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 169 Mont. 167 - Erickson v. Perrett

Erickson v. Perrett’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
March 1999
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 1999

2 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

110197619801990decided

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 Bryan v. United States · Neely v. Martin K. Eby Construction Co., Inc. · McNair v. Berger · Mize v. Rocky Mountain Bell Telephone Co. · Flansberg v. Montana Power Company

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. “`A further qualification [to the sudden emergency rule] which must be made is that some”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““(a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicles and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““[A] person operating or driving a vehicle of any character on a public highway of this state shall drive it in a careful and prudent manner, and at a rate of speed no greater than is reasonable and proper under the conditions existing at the point of operation, taking into account the amount and character of traffic, condition of brakes, weight of vehicle, grade and width of highway, condition of surface, and freedom of obstruction to view ahead, and he shall drive it so as not to unduly or unreasonably endanger the life, limb, property, or other rights of a person entitled to the use of the street or highway.” (Emphasis by District Court.)”
    1 later decision 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.