Dawson v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2004
24 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 Great Northern Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co · 18 Ill. 2d 11 - Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District No. 302 · Holytz v. City of Milwaukee · United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co. · Spanel v. Mounds View School District No. 621
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]very driver of a vehicle approaching a stop intersection indicated by a stop sign shall stop ... and after having stopped shall yield the right of way to any vehicle which has entered the intersection from another roadway or which is approaching so closely on said roadway as to constitute an immediate hazard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Martinez v. Dyche · Dawson v. Olson““In Carter this Court established two rules: (1) In general, no amount is ‘justly due’ from the insurer until facts substantially indicative of the uninsured motorist’s liability are shown the insurer, or, in the absence of such facts, until the uninsured motorist’s liability is admitted or judicially declared. (2) Where the insurer is sued for attorney fees incurred in a separate successful action against the uninsured motorist, the insurer is obligated to pay the attorney fees only if its initial refusal to pay the claim were unreasonable.” 94 Idaho at 641 , 496 P.2d at 102 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In the torts area, the likelihood that an injured party will undertake extended and costly litigation without hope of compensation, simply to establish a new doctrine, is slight unless the injury is recurring in nature. Smith arose from a single incident, an automobile accident on a bridge maintained by the Department of Highways. Only by applying the decision to the plaintiffs at bar could their legitimate interest in compensation, after trying and appealing the issue, have been satisfied. Dawson, supra, 94 Idaho at 639 n. 6, 496 P.2d at 100 n. 6 (emphasis added).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Sterling v. Bloom
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.