Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 Ariz. 116 - Scott v. Scott

Scott v. Scott’s Empirical Analysis

1953

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
2
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

4 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Busy Bee Buffet, Inc. v. Ferrell (1957), Walls v. Arizona Department of Public Safety (1991)

4 district · 40 state decisions

1401953196019701980199020002010decided

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 Butane Corporation v. Kirby · Barry v. Southern Pac. Co. · Dennis v. Stukey · Tipton v. Burson · Womack v. Preach

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

  1. ““Wanton negligence is highly potent, and when it is present it fairly proclaims itself in no uncertain terms. It is ‘in the air’, so to speak. It is flagrant and evinces a lawless and destructive spirit.” 75 Ariz. at 122 , 252 P.2d at 575 .”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ * * * a reckless disregard of the rights of others or a reckless indifference to results. * * * the intentional doing of an act or failure to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor’s conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other, but also in volves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to him.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““ * * * Wanton negligence is highly potent, and when it is present it fairly proclaims itself in no uncertain terms. It is 'in the air’, so to speak. It is flagrant and evinces a lawless and • destructive spirit. [Citing case.] As we view the evidence the jury might well have found defendant Murphy • guilty of simple negligence of any or all of the acts complained of, but his so-called acts of negligence had none of the attributes of wantonness as heretofore more specifically defined in the cases above referred to.””
    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.