Stojkovic v. Weller’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently July 2013
20 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 217 Pa. Super. 35 - Focht v. Rabada · Hoover's Dairy, Inc. v. Mid-America Dairymen, Inc./Special Products, Inc. · Burnett v. Griffith · Miller v. Blanton · Sebastian v. Wood
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If you find in favor of plaintiff under Instruction Number_, and if you believe the conduct of defendant as submitted in Instruction Number __ showed complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others, then in addition to any damages to which you may find plaintiff entitled under Instruction Number_, you may award plaintiff an additional amount as punitive damages in such sum as you believe will serve to punish defendant and to deter defendant and others from like conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““In Missouri the law has been that in an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, evidence of intoxication of a party is admissible as a circumstance to be considered with other facts in evidence to determine the question of negligence. Broderson v. Farthing, 762 S.W.2d 548, 549 (Mo.App.1989). Evidence of the drinking of alcohol, however, as opposed to actual intoxication, is admissible only when coupled with evidence of erratic driving or some other circumstance from which it might be inferred that defendant’s physical condition was impaired at the time of the collision. Before evidence of alcohol consumption becomes relevant, the other evidence must support an inference that the drinking caused the party to drive in an erratic manner and that the erratic driving caused the collision. The evidence must not include guess work, conjecture and speculation as to the existence of the necessary facts to make the conclusion. Id. Erratic driving involves something more than mere negligence. Id. at 551 . It includes ‘abnormal, peculiar, unaccountable and aberrant operation of the vehicle.’ Id. ‘Erratic driving is not the product of carelessness or of inattention but is conduct so heedless of circumstances as to be attributable to some impairment of faculties or of function.’ Id.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“knew or had reason to know that there was a high degree of probability that the action would result in injury.”
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.