Dahl v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Archibeque v. Homrich (1975), Schrib v. Seidenberg (1969)
2 federal appellate · 76 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 Barnett v. Cal M, Inc. · State v. James · Gallegos Ex Rel. Estate of Gallegos v. Wallace · Landers v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Chavira v. Carnahan
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 78 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`The provision of this act declaring prima facie speed limitations shall not be construed to relieve the plaintiff in any civil action from the burden of proving negligence on the part of the defendant as the proximate cause of an accident.' "Mrs. Turner contends that under this statute, proof of violation of a posted speed is not negligence per se; rather, that a violation can be no more than evidence of negligence. We disagree. "Section 64-18-7(B), supra, indicates that in cases concerned with posted speed limits plaintiff must still meet his traditional burden of proof. It says that a case involving posted speed limits is not a special category just because posted speed limits are involved. Even if posted speed limits are involved, plaintiff must still prove negligence as a proximate cause of the accident. "Section 64-18-7(B), supra, however, does not state how negligence is to be proved. Proof of violation of a statute is one method of proving negligence. See Clay v. Texas-Arizona Motor Freight, Inc., 49 N.M. 157 , 159 P.2d 317 (1945). Section 64-18-7(B), supra, does not provide that proof of violation of statutes concerning posted speed limits is not proof of negligence. "Once it was proved that Mrs. Turner violated the posted speed limits she was negligent as a matter of law because proof of the violation was proof of negligence on her part. Section 64-18-7(B), supra, does not change that rule." Dahl v. Turner, 80 N.M. 564 , 458 P.2d 816, 823 (App. 1969), cert. den. 80”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Griffith v. Schmidt““Emergency” has been defined as unforeseen circumstances or the resultant state that calls for immediate action. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary. It has been defined as a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; a pressing necessity. Black’s Law Dictionary (4th ed. 1951). See also, Good Samaritan Legislation: An Analysis and a Proposal, 38 Temple Law Quarterly 418 n.41 at 424 (1964-65).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * An expert witness must, of course, be able to give a satisfactory explanation as to how he arrives at his opinion. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Smith v. Klebanoff
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.