Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 364 Mo. 921 - Stewart v. Farley

Stewart v. Farley’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
2
states following
December 1980
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 1980

10 state decisions

401954196019701980decided

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 McGaffigan v. Kennedy · Sparks v. Chitwood Motor Company · Schubring v. Weggen · Davis v. Hollowell · 133 Cal. App. 106 - Hirsch v. D'Autremont

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

  1. ““Negligence is one kind of tort, an unintentional injury usually predicated upon failure to observe a prescribed standard of care (52 Am.Jur., Sec. 20) while a willful, wanton, reckless injury is another kind of tort, an intentional injury often based upon an act done in utter disregard of the consequences. 52 Am.Jur., Secs. 22, 23; 38 Am.Jur., Secs. 4, 5. Reckless conduct may be negligent in that it is unreasonable but it is and must be something more than unreasonable, ‘it must contain a risk of harm to others in excess of that necessary to make the conduct unreasonable and therefore, negligent.' 2 Restatement, Torts, p. 1294. ‘The actor’s (defendant’s) conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intentionally does an act * * * knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to him’ 2 Restatement, Torts, secs. 500, 501.” *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““ ‘Wantonness’ or ‘recklessness’ within the rule means that the actor, here the plaintiff, ‘has intentionally done an act which was of an unreasonable character, in disregard of a risk known to him or so obvious that he must be taken to have been aware of it, which was so great as to make it highly probable that harm would follow.’ Prosser, Torts, p. 261.””
    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.