Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 74 SD 92 - Flanagan v. Slattery

Flanagan v. Slattery’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
3
states following
April 1990
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 1990 · most notably Associated Engineers, Inc. v. Job (1966), Miller v. Baken Park, Inc. (1970)

4 federal appellate · 40 state decisions

18019511960197019801990decided

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 Petersen v. Schneider · Hansen v. Isaak · Friese v. Gulbrandson · Kundert v. B. F. Goodrich Co. · McKiver v. Theo. Hamm Brewing 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"In all actions brought to recover damages for injuries to a person or to his property caused by the negligence of another, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery when the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant but in such case, the damages shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of plaintiff's contributory negligence." Ch. 149, Laws 1964.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “shall first see that such movement can be made in safety”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Where the evidence in relation to negligence and contributory negligence is such that reasonable minds might differ as to the existence of slight negligence on the one hand and gross negligence on the other, the question of comparison is for the jury. If, however, the facts are not in dispute or of such a nature that reasonable men could not differ, the standards of conduct are for the court to determine, and not for the jury.”
    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.