Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 SD 134 - Johnson v. Armfield

Johnson v. Armfield’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

19
cited by 19 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

2 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently February 2025

2 district · 17 state decisions

90200320102020decided

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 Wilson v. Great Northern Railway Company · Engberg v. Ford Motor Company · State v. Pellegrino · Veeder v. Kennedy · Starnes v. Stofferahn

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

  1. “Contributory negligence is a `breach of duty which the law imposes upon persons to protect themselves from injury, and which, concurring and cooperating with actionable negligence for which defendant is responsible, contributes to the injury complained of as a proximate cause.' (quoting Boomsma v. Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad Corp., 2002 SD 106, ¶ 34 , 651 N.W.2d 238, 245-46 (additional citations omitted)). Where plaintiff's contributory negligence is more than slight compared to defendant's negligence, plaintiff is barred from recovery. SDCL 20-9-2. As long as there is competent evidence to support the theory of contributory negligence, it is proper for the issue to go to the jury. Id. (citing Parker v. Casa Del Rey, 2002 SD 29, ¶ 5 , 641 N.W.2d 112, 115 ).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.