Johnston v. Vukelic’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 1992 · most notably Lucero Ex Rel. Lucero v. Torres (1960), Brittain v. Booth (1979)
6 federal appellate · 32 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 O'Malley v. Eagan · Parks v. Airline Motor Coaches, Inc. · Avent v. Tucker · Estill v. Berry · Ries v. Cheyenne Cab & Transfer Co.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * exercising those qualities of attention, knowledge, intelligence and judgment which society requires of its members for the protection of their own interests and the interests of others. [Citation.]" Johnston v. Vukelic, 67 Wyo. 1, 18 , 213 P.2d 925, 930 (1950).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘A plaintiff, who, by the exercise of reasonable vigilance could have observed the danger created by the defendant’s negligence in time to have avoided harm therefrom, may recover if, but only if, the defendant “ ‘(a) knew of the plaintiff’s situation, and “ ‘(b) realized or had reason to realize that the plaintiff was inattentive and therefore unlikely to discover his peril in time to avoid the harm, and “ ‘(c). thereafter is negligent in failing to utilize with reasonable care and competence his then existing ability to avoid harming the plaintiff.’ * * * * * * “ * * * the last clear chance doctrine ‘can never apply where the party charged is required to act instantaneously, and if the injury cannot be avoided by the application of all means at hand after the discovery of the peril * * * > ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The burden of proving plaintiffs' contributory negligence was on the defendant, and a finding against defendant on the issue cannot be distributed (disturbed) in this court unless we can say, as stated in Ries vs. Cheyenne C. & T. Co. 53 Wyo. 104, 118 , 79 P (2d) 468, 473 that `reasonable men can draw but one inference which points unerringly to such negligence.' However, this rule in regard to the burden of proof does not necessarily mean that defendant must produce evidence on the issue. Plaintiff's own evidence may clearly show his own negligence. See Cook v. C.B. & Q. Rly. Co., 18 Wyo. 43 , 102 P 657 . This frequently happens in collision cases, where the plaintiff is making out a prima facie case on the issue of defendant's negligence must show his own conduct at the time he was injured.”
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.