Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 S.D. 400 - Degen v. Bayman

Degen v. Bayman’s Empirical Analysis

1976

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
8
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 10 district · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably 229 Ill. 2d 393 - Wills v. Foster (2008), Anderson Ex Rel. Anderson/Couvillon v. Nebraska Department of Social Services (1995)

3 federal appellate · 10 district · 39 state decisions

24019761980199020002010decided

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 Degen v. Bayman · Peters v. Hoisington · Moore v. Kluthe & Lane Ins. Agency, Inc. · Dahlin v. Kron · Kressly v. Theberge

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

  1. “Thus the question at issue between the parties is determined by the pleadings. Even though the Plaintiff now contends that he, in fact, had no cause of action in tort against one of the Defendants, the court will consider the issues as framed by the pleadings. Where the Plaintiff charges several Defendants with tort, and one of the Defendants buys its way out of the suit and is given a release and covenant not to sue, the court will not go into the question of liability of such Defendant. The test in such case is: Was the Defendant sued as a tort-feasor? If so, any liability of the remaining Defendants to the Plaintiff must be reduced by the amount paid for such release or covenant not to sue by such Defendant. [Levi v. Montgomery, N.D.] 120 N.W.2d [383] at 388-389 [1963].”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The general rule is that a plaintiff who has been injured by the tortious conduct of the defendant is entitled to recover the reasonable value of medical and nursing services reasonably required by the injury. This is a recovery for their value and not for the expenditures actually made or obligations incurred. Thus, under this general rule, the fact that the medical and nursing services were rendered gratuitously to the one who was injured will not preclude the injured party from recovering the value of those services as a part of his compensatory damages. Accordingly, the plaintiffs recovery will not be reduced by the fact that the medical expenses were paid by some source collateral to the defendant, such as by a beneficial society, by members of the plaintiffs family; by the plaintiffs employer, or by an insurance company.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When a release or covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death: 1. It does not discharge any of the other tort-feasors from liability for the injury ... unless its terms so provide; but it reduces the claim against the others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is the greater; and 2. It discharges the tort-feasor to whom it is given from all liability for contribution to any other tort-feasor. Sec. 32-38-04 N.D.C.C.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.