Lyons v. Nasby’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
6 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Graff v. Beard (1993), Lombard v. Colorado Outdoor Education Center, Inc. (2008)
6 district · 48 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 Difronzo v. United States · 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · Ontiveros v. Borak · Massachusetts v. Podgurski Et Al. · Kowal v. Hofher
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in any action by any person ... to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or in injury to person or property, if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage, or death recovery is made.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) The general assembly hereby finds, determines, and declares that this section shall be interpreted so that any common law cause of action against a vendor of alcoholic beverages is abolished and that in certain cases the consumption of alcoholic beverages rather than the sale, service, or provision thereof is the proximate cause of injuries or damages inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person except as otherwise provided in this section. [[Image here]] (3)(a) No licensee is civilly liable to any injured individual or his estate for any injury to such individual or damage to any property suffered because of the intoxication of any person due to the sale or service of any alcoholic beverage to such person, except when:' (I) It is proven that the licensee willfully and knowingly sold or served any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquor to such person who was under the age of twenty-one years or who was visibly intoxicated; and (II) The civil action is commenced within one year after such sale or service. (b) No civil action may be brought pursuant to this subsection (3) by the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was sold or served or by his estate, legal guardian, or dependent. (c) In any civil action brought pursuant to this subsection (3), the total liability in any such action shall not exceed one hundred fifty thousand dollars.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Colorado the violation of an ordinance adopted for the public’s safety may be negligence per se if it is established that the violation proximately caused the injury. See Lambotte v. Payton, 147 Colo. 207 , 363 P.2d 167 (1961); Hertz Driv-Ur-Self System, Inc. v. Hendrickson, 109 Colo. 1 , 121 P.2d 483 (1942). The plaintiff must also show that he or she is a member of the class of persons whom the statute was intended to protect and that the injuries suffered were of a kind that the statute was enacted to prevent. [Largo Corp. v.] Crespin, 727 P.2d [1098], at 1108 [Colo.1986]; Dunbar v. Olivieri, 97 Colo. 381 , 50 P.2d 64 (1935).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.