Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 374 P.2d 772 - Ritchie v. Raines

Ritchie v. Raines’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2024

18 state decisions

601962197019801990200020102020decided

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. London

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

  1. “"Negligent homicide “(a) When the death of any person ensues within one year as a proximate result of injury received by the driving of any vehicle in reckless disregard of the safety of others, the person so "operating such vehicle shall be guilty of negligent homicide. “(b) Any person convicted of negligent homicide shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year or by fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,-000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment. “(c) The Commissioner of Public Safety shall revoke the license or permit to drive and any nonresident operating privilege of any person convicted of negligent homicide. Laws 1961, p. 387, § 11-903.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “5. Repeal by implication exists in two classes of cases: First, when the later statute covers the whole subject-matter of the earlier, especially when additional remedies are imposed; and, second, when the later is repugnant to or inconsistent with the earlier. 6. To effect a repeal by implication, the later must be so broad in its scope and so clear and explicit in its terms as to show that it was intended to cover the whole subject-matter, and displace the prior statute, or the two must be so plainly repugnant and inconsistent that they cannot stand together.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “1. That a person is operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway or thoroughfare, and 2. That while so operating the motor vehicle he is under the influence of intoxicants to such an extent that he is “incapable of safely driving a motor vehicle” and to this misdemeanor is added the following elements: 3. That a person die within one year and one day, and ' 4. That the death was the direct and proximate result of the operation of a motor vehicle.”
    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.