Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 591 P2D 438 - Tjas v. Proctor

Tjas v. Proctor’s Empirical Analysis

1979

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
7
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently October 2014 · most notably 106 Wash. 2d 658 - Younce v. Ferguson (1986), 719 So. 2d 757 - LITTLE BY LITTLE v. Bell (1998)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 state decisions

10019791980199020002010decided

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 11 Utah 2d 411 - Hales v. Peterson · 11 Utah 2d 23 - Olsen v. Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company · Cannon v. Oviatt · 17 Utah 2d 261 - Robinson v. Hreinson · 25 Utah 2d 168 - Stevens v. Salt Lake County

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

  1. “A wife may receive the wages for her personal labor, maintain an action therefor in her own name and hold the same in her own right, and may prosecute and defend all actions for the preservation and protection of her rights and property as if unmarried. There shall be no right of recovery by the husband on account of personal injury or wrong to his wife, or for expenses connected therewith, but the wife may recover against a third person for such injury or wrong as if unmarried, and such recovery shall include expenses of medical treatment and other expenses paid or assumed by the husband.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] wife is permitted to recover for loss of service to her family as a result of her injuries and this loss, sometimes referred to as consortium, is properly part of the wife's claim only... . [A] husband may not maintain a loss of consortium action for the claimed negligent injury to his wife.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] court's communication with a jury will be considered reversible error only if the error is 'substantial or prejudicial ... such that the result would have been different had it not taken place'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.