3 Neb. Ct. App. 218 - State v. Bartlett’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently January 2016
8 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 State v. Myers · Nichols v. Busse · State v. Van Ackeren · Anderson v. Nashua Corp. · State v. Ring
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. [the defendant] was operating a motor vehicle; and, “2. when he did so, he caused serious bodily injury to [the victim]; and, “3. when he did so, he had a concentration of ten-hundredths of one gram or more by weight of alcohol per one hundred milliliters of his blood ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Adams · State v. Anderson“To interpret the statute otherwise, that is, to find that the statute criminalizes any bodily injury which the defendant proximately causes if the defendant happens to be driving while intoxicated, would result in an absurdity. If we were to interpret the statute in such a way, it would impose strict liability upon a defendant for an act such as assaulting his passenger, if it caused serious bodily injury, so long as the defendant happened to be driving and happened to be intoxicated in violation of § 39-669.07 [now codified at § 60-6,196]. Rather, the conduct which the statute seeks to criminalize is some act of the defendant which proximately causes serious bodily injury. The only act mentioned in the statute is the act of driving while intoxicated. Therefore, we believe the act of driving while intoxicated must proximately cause the injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Anderson““ ‘In criminal cases prosecuted under the motor vehicle homicide act, the negligence or unlawful acts of another driver which proximately contributed to the death, as distinguished from an independent intervening cause thereof, [are] not a defense if the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s negligence or unlawful acts were also a proximate cause of the death of another.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Brown
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.