Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 476 NW2D 69 - Sullivan v. Wickwire

Sullivan v. Wickwire’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 2019

5 state decisions

30199120002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2680

Relies on Dalehite v. United States · United States v. S.A. Empresa De Viacao Aerea Rio Grandense · Lewis v. State · State v. Webster · Stanley Ex Rel. Stanley v. State

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.

  1. “There is considerable merit in plaintiffs claim .... In Iowa and elsewhere, an instruction submitted to the jury without objection becomes the law of the case and will not be disturbed on appeal. The [defendant] attempts to discredit the rule in the present case by arguing the jurors’ sole task was to find damages and allocate percentages of fault, leaving to the court the job of applying mathematical formulas to achieve the correct judgment. We do not believe, however, that the jury’s understanding of the impact of its verdict is irrelevant to its decision-making responsibilities. In keeping with Iowa Code section 668.3(5), our prior decisions make clear that the court must instruct the jury with respect to the effect of answers given to special interrogatories, and the court’s failure to do so may constitute reversible error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In any action brought pursuant to this chapter, the state or a municipality shall not be assigned a percentage of fault for any of the following: 1. The failure to place, erect, or install a stop sign, traffic control device, or other regulatory sign as defined in the uniform manual for traffic control devices adopted pursuant to section 321.252. However, once a regulatory device has been placed, created or installed, the state or municipality may be assigned a percentage of fault for its failure to maintain the device.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If you assign a percentage of fault to the settling party, I will reduce the amount of plaintiff's recovery by that percentage.”
    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.