Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 813 P.2d 1146 - State v. Warden

State v. Warden’s Empirical Analysis

1991

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2019

2 federal appellate · 16 state decisions

70199120002010decided

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 State v. Verde · State v. Petree · State v. Booker · State v. Standiford · Dalley v. Utah Valley Regional Medical Center

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

  1. “[The evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom are viewed in the light most favorable to the jury verdict.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A factor on that matter is, I think important to note, that Mr. J. Larsen notes that as the light turned green for Mr. Brett Larsen, that he waited a few moments, then he moved into the intersection. Mr. J. Larsen describes the turn as not being slow and not being fast, just a casual, normal turn, and I took it to mean that Mr. Brett Larsen was turning as if it were a clear intersection. Mr. J. Larsen, sitting behind Mr. Brett Larsen, can see the other motor vehicle approaching the intersection, so it’s clear that that vehicle was visible. And finally, Deputy Stratford tells us that Mr. Brett Larsen’s truck tire was moving at the time of the impact, indicating that he made no effort to stop. Now, with those findings of fact, when we come to the standard that must be applied, which both sides have recited. Should Mr. Brett Larsen have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he was taking or which might occur when he took that risk? And was this risk of such a nature and degree that his failure to perceive it constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise in all the circumstances as viewed from Mr. Brett Larsen’s standpoint? And I have to say, though it’s been ably argued and the facts presented, it's clear to me that this is a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person has to exercise. Were that not true, it would not be possible to drive a motor vehicle on any roadway that ever intersected ”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “failure to perceive [that risk] constituted 'a gross deviation from the standard of care.'”
    2 later decisions 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.