Endresen v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 state decisions

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

1. “It is common knowledge that the mere presence of a dog or other animal upon a highway or street can be a serious distraction to, and even interference with, traffic'). The district court did not err in taking judicial notice of the fact that the North Platte River often runs below the high water line, or the fact that it would be difficult to fish or hunt without access to the stream bed. . The Landowners also object to the interpretation that the boundary for the easement is the middle of the river because "there is no way to determine where that 'middle of the river is located.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Davison v. Wyoming Game & Fish Commission · Davison v. WYOMING GAME AND FISH COM'N

2. ““The probability of injury by one to the legally protected interests of another is the basis for the law’s creation of a duty to avoid such injury, and foresight of harm lies at the foundation of the duty to use care and therefore of negligence. The broad test of negligence is what a reasonably prudent person would foresee and would do in the light of this foresight under the circumstances. Negligence is clearly relative in reference to the knowledge of the risk of injury to be apprehended. * * * The most common test of negligence, therefore, is whether the consequences of the alleged wrongful act were reasonably to be foreseen as injurious to others coming within the range of such acts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. ABC Builders, Inc. v. Phillips

3. “The element of common enterprise, or as it is often termed, joint enterprise, is of material importance in this case. It is said in 46 Am.Jur.2d, Joint Ventures § 5, p. 26 that joint enterprises are to be distinguished from joint ventures “in that the former is an undertaking for the mutual benefit or pleasure of the parties, while the latter is limited to business enterprises.” * * * It has been said that the necessary elements [of a joint enterprise] are (1) an agreement, express or implied; (2) a common purpose; (3) community of pecuniary interest; and (4) an equal right to a voice in control and direction of the enterprise.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Popejoy v. Steinle