Williams v. Crist’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently August 2021
4 federal appellate · 15 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 CLOUSE, ETC. v. Peden · Martin v. Roberts · Department of Treasury v. City of Linton · 182 Ind. App. 530 - Keck v. Kerbs · Andert v. Fuchs
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"As Judge Ratliff points out, the drunken driver is a major source of property damage and personal injury in the United States today. The drunken driver kills more citizens each year than any other group of criminals. As Judge Ratliff notes, in 1980, approximately 26,300 persons were killed in the United States by drunken drivers. Roberts [v. Chaney (1984), Ind.App., 465 N.E.2d 1154, 1161 ] (Ratliff, J., dissenting). We heartily agree with the statement made by Judge Ratliff in his dissent in Roberts that [driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated thereby endangering one's guest rider is wanton and willful misconduct per se and it is high time we said so.! Id. Probably because the consumption of alcoholic beverages is so widespread and generally accepted as a recreational pastime, legislators, juries and judges, both trial and appellate, have too often treated the problem in a cavalier manner. As Judge Ratliff says, it is high time we publicly state that the intoxicated driver is guilty of willful and wanton misconduct when he deliberately assumes control of an automobile and places it upon a public highway."”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"Driving while under the influence of alcohol is, in my judgment wanton and willful but the undisputed evidence was that Williams' driving was unimpaired. I regard the verdict and the acceptance of transfer and affirmance by this Court as nothing less than a determination that the ingestion of aleohol and driving a motor vehicle shortly thereafter is conduct that society should not tolerate and that holding an offender liable in damages, without regard to a casual [sic] connection between the two, will serve as a deterrent. Neither do I have any quarrel with the establishing of such a policy. However, such is the exclusive prerogative of our legislature. I vote to deny transfer upon the authority of Andert []." Id. (Prentice, J., dissenting).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Wohlwend v. Edwards“Without question driving in a state of intoxication upon snow covered roads, when increased care is required, is negligence. But is it wanton or willful misconduct, as those terms have been heretofore defined by this Court? We think not, for the reason that the mental attitude of perverseness or conscious indifference are not reasonably inferable therefrom. Intoxication combined with evidence of other misconduct, such as speeding, driving on the wrong side of the road or violating other traffic regulations, heightens the inference of willfulness or wantonness that may be drawn from such cireumstances, but here there was no such evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Wohlwend v. Edwards
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.