Otterbeck v. Lamb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

36 state decisions

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

1. ““It is also unquestionably the majority rule in the United States that a passenger in an automobile has no duty of lookout or duty to warn the driver in the absence of special circumstances. Restatement of Torts Second, Sec. 495, Comments c-f, pages 556-558; Duffy v. Flynn, 72 Nev. 278 , 302 P.2d 967 (1956); Frame v. Grisewood, 81 Nev. 114 , 399 P.2d 450 (1965); Drake v. Driscoll, 267 F.2d 274 (5th Cir. 1959); Watters v. Parrish, 115 S.E.2d 1 (N.C. 1960); Lamfers v. Licklider, 332 S.W.2d 882 (Mo. 1960); Robinson v. Cable, 11 Cal.Rptr. 377 (Cal. 1961); Pobor v. Western Pacific Railroad Co., 359 P.2d 474 (Cal. 1961); Klein v. Southern Pacific Co., 21 Cal.Rptr. 233 (D.C.App. 1962); Van Pelt v. Carte, 26 Cal.Rptr. 182 (D.C.App. 1962); Mitchell v. Colquette, 379 P.2d 757 (Ariz. 1963); Borders v. Borders, 376 S.W.2d 519 (Ky. 1964). “The special circumstances which create the duty are obvious, imminent, danger, of which the passenger is aware and the driver is not; or where the driver is sleepy or intoxicated, which is known to the passenger; or where road or weather conditions are particularly hazardous. Otherwise, the passenger should refrain from advice, instruction or attempted control over the driver, for fear of creating more danger by a distraction rather than lessening it by unwarranted, unwise advice. If the passenger specifically undertakes a lookout, then he is under a duty to do an ordinarily careful job of it.” 85 Nev., at 461-462 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wood v. Southern Pacific Co.

2. “If no objection to an instruction is made, there is no compliance with Rule 51 and the error is not preserved for appellate consideration. Wagon Wheel v. Mavrogan, [ 78 Nev. 126 , 369 P.2d 688 (1962)]; Hotel Riviera v. Short, [ 80 Nev. 505 , 396 P.2d 855 (1964)]; Shoshone Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Dolinski, [ 82 Nev. 439 , 420 P.2d 855 (1966)]. If an objection is so general that it does not state any ground, review will be denied. Lathrop v. Smith, [ 71 Nev. 274 , 288 P.2d 212 (1955)]. If it is merely contended that an instruction is “proper” and should be given, review is precluded unless there is “plain error.” Downing v. Marlia, [ 82 Nev. 294 , 417 P.2d 150 (1966)] ....”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Carson Ready Mix, Inc. v. First National Bank

3. “[S]trict liability may be imposed even though the product is faultlessly 2 Respondents contend that many of the issues raised by MCI in this appeal were not preserved in MCI's original NRCP 50(a) motion. We disagree. This court has long recognized, in relation to preserving error under NRCP 51, that "[c]ounsel, in the heat of a trial, cannot be expected to respond with all the legal niceties and nuances of a brief writer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. MOTOR COACH INDUS., INC. VS. KHIABANI