Hoffman v. Royer’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2015
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 Bartlett v. Gregg · Flanagan v. Slattery · Cordell v. Scott · Barnhart v. Ahlers · Stoltz v. Stonecypher
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.
““Although wef believe unavoidable accident instructions should be restrictively used we do not favor ... total exclusion. ... Such instruction may properly be given in those cases where there is evidence that something other than the negligence of one of the parties caused the mishap. It is particularly apt where the further element of ‘surprise’ is present such as the sudden and unexpected presence of ice, the blowout of a tire, the malfunction of brakes, or other mechanical failure.” ■”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]n order to resolve what appears to be a conflict between our holdings in Jacobson v. Coady [ 77 S.D. 1 , 84 N.W.2d 1 (1957)] and Bartlett v. Gregg [ 77 S.D. 406 , 92 N.W.2d 654 (1958)], supra, it is now established that in personal injury, wrongful death, and property damage claims tried following the date of our mandate in this case the parties should be restricted to inquiring on voir dire whether any member of the jury panel is an officer, director, employee, agent, or stockholder in any corporation. If there are no affirmative responses to this question, there should be no further questioning along this line. If there is an affirmative response, counsel should be permitted to inquire regarding the nature of the relationship and the name of the corporation. This procedure should provide adequate information to the parties without injecting the element of insurance in a situation in which there is absolutely no justification for it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kallis v. Beers“Questions relating to negligence and contributory negligence are questions of fact for the jury in all except the rarest of instances.”
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.