Worley v. Schaefer’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2016
4 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 Boren v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Dugdale of Nebraska, Inc. v. First State Bank · Safeco Insurance v. Lapp · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Fitzgerald · Weiss v. Union Insurance
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Dugdale of Nebraska v. First State Bank, 227 Neb. 729, 732 , 420 N.W.2d 273, 276 (1988), this court for the first time acknowledged that “the provisions of Neb. U.C.C. art. 2 (Reissue 1980) governing sales are applicable to the sale of a motor vehicle.” Until Dugdale, cases involving motor vehicle sales disputes were resolved solely by application of the relevant, and sometimes not so relevant, provisions of the Nebraska certificate of title act. [Citations omitted.] Thus, by recognizing that motor vehicles are “goods” within the definition provided by Neb. U.C.C. art. 2 (Reissue 1980), Dugdale set the stage for future cases which necessarily involve competing and conflicting clauses and provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and the title act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alford v. Neal“No person . . . acquiring a motor vehicle ... shall acquire any right, title, claim, or interest in or to such motor vehicle... until he shall have had delivered to him physical possession of such motor vehicle . . . and a certificate of title or a manufacturer’s or importer’s certificate duly executed in accordance with the provisions of this act, and with such assignments thereon as may be necessary to show title in the purchaser thereof or an instrument in writing required by section 60-1417 . . . .No court in any case at law or in equity shall recognize the right, title, claim, or interest of any person in or to any motor vehicle. . . sold or disposed of, or mortgaged or encumbered, unless there is compliance with this section.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alford v. Neal
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.