Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 91 Ariz. 239 - Sisk v. Ball

Sisk v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis

1962

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
3
states following
June 1998
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently June 1998 · most notably Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. (1982), Kauffman v. Schroeder (1977)

2 federal appellate · 27 state decisions

1101962197019801990decided

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 Layton v. Rocha · 5 Ill. 2d 135 - Hall v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co. · Tyrrell v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America · Narciso v. Mauch Chunk Township · Caldwell v. Tremper

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

  1. “The courts carefully guard against the improper disclosures to the jury that a defendant is insured. ... It is thought that if jurors know the defendant will not have to personally pay, they will more readily find him liable and fix the damages at a higher figure. Here we have the converse situation. Where the jury is led to believe that the plaintiff has another chance to recover from [another] for this same injury, and are told he will surely do so, . . . they might desire to cast the entire burden of damages upon the [other] who, in their view, might be able to pay, or more culpable than the defendant before them.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Violation of a statute enacted for the public safety is negligence per se, Anderson v. Morgan, 73 Ariz. 344 , 241 P.2d 786 (1952), and when this theory is supported by the evidence, [a party] is entitled to have a properly worded instruction on this issue read to the jury. Of course, a violation of the statutory duty must be also a proximate cause of the injury to constitute actionable negligence. Caldwell v. Tremper, 90 Ariz. 241 , 367 P.2d 266 (1961).” 91 Ariz. at 242 , 371 P.2d at 595-96 .”
    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.