9 Utah 2d 17 - Richards v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently June 1982
16 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 2 Utah 2d 381 - Coombs v. Perry · Martin v. Stevens · Morris v. Farnsworth Motel · Compton v. Ogden Union Ry. & Depot Co. · Fusco v. Dauphin
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * There is, of course, no precise set of measurements by which an immediate hazard can be gauged. It must be judged on the basis of common sense in the light of existing circumstances. In reference to a similar situation the Supreme Court of Delaware has said that an ‘immediate hazard’ is created when a vehicle approaches an intersection on a favored street at a reasonable speed under such circumstances that, if the disfavored driver proceeds into the intersection it will force the favored driver to sharply and suddenly cheek his progress or stop in order to avoid collision. Conversely, if the disfavored driver has made his stop and deferred to all vehicles that would be required to go into a sharp or sudden braking to avoid collision, the cars far enough away have a clear margin to observe and make a smooth and safe stop are not an ‘immediate hazard’ and are required to yield to the driver already at the intersection.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hermann v. Wohlers“(2) Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching the stop sign shall stop at a clearly marked stop line . . .. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cintron v. Milkovich
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.