Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1997 OK 86 - Reddell v. Johnson

Reddell v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

31
cited by 31 later decisions
5
states following
February 2026
most recently cited

29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently February 2026 · most notably Warren v. Stanfield (2012), OSAGE NATION v. BD. OF COMMISSIONERS OF OSAGE COUNTY and OSAGE NATION v. OSAGE COUNTY BD. OF ADJUSTMENT (2017)

29 state decisions

1101997200020102020decided

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 Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc. · 3 Cal. 4th 296 - Knight v. Jewett · 167 Ill. 2d 417 - Pfister v. Shusta · Flanders v. Crane Co. · Kennedy v. Providence Hockey Club, Inc.

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

  1. “The Oklahoma Constitution provides in Article 23, Section 6, that "[t]he defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be questions of fact, and shall, at all times, be left to the jury." Following the plain meaning of these words, this Court has generally required the issue of assumption of risk to be submitted to a jury. Two exceptions to Article 23, Section 6's mandate have been recognized. . . . [T]he defense of assumption of the risk need not be presented to the jury if (1) the plaintiff fails to present evidence showing primary negligence on the part of the defendant, or (2) if there are no material facts in dispute, and reasonable minds exercising fair and impartial judgment could not reach differing conclusions. . . . [W]e [have] cautioned [that] "[t]he exceptions to Article 23, Section 6's constitutional assurance of a jury's determination of the defense of assumption of the risk must be narrowly read, lest they swallow the rule."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be questions of fact, and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[ain appellate court is generally confined to the issues raised by the parties and presented by the proof, pleadings, petition in error and briefs.”
    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.