Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 18 Utah 2d 329 - Badger v. Clayson

18 Utah 2d 329 - Badger v. Clayson’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
August 1990
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently August 1990

14 state decisions

601967197019801990decided

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 1 Utah 2d 143 - Hillyard v. Utah By-Products Co. · 11 Utah 2d 411 - Hales v. Peterson · 9 Utah 2d 268 - Johnson v. Maynard · 18 Utah 2d 269 - Howe v. Jackson · 16 Utah 2d 336 - Universal Investment Company v. Carpets, Incorporated

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

  1. “You are instructed that even though the operator of an automobile has the right-of-way, he still has the duty to keep and to maintain a reasonable, proper, and adequate lookout and to use reasonable and ordinary care to avoid a collision. One who has the right-of-way must use due care while crossing and must continue to keep a reasonable lookout and reappraise the situation as he approaches an intersection and use reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances to avoid a collision as he proceeds. There is imposed upon a driver the duty to be aware of the relative positions and speeds of vehicles approaching and he must recurrently reobserve and reappraise in the light of the consistent changing conditions of a fluid traffic situation. Therefore, even if you should find from the evidence in this case that either driver had the technical right-of-way, you should also consider that such right-of-way is a relative right only, and if he was careless in failing to keep and continue to keep a reasonable and adequate lookout or fail to exercise reasonable and ordinary care under the circumstances to avoid a collision and that such negligence, if any, proximately contributed in any substantial degree to cause the collision, he would be negligent.”
    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.