Streenz v. Streenz’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 104 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 3 Cal. 3d 914 - Gibson v. Gibson (1971), 156 Ill. 2d 76 - Cates v. Cates (1993)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 104 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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 Goller v. White · 45 Cal. 2d 421 - Emery v. Emery · Hewlett v. George · Gelbman v. Gelbman · Briere v. Briere
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child; and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where such insurance exists, the domestic tranquility argument is hollow, for in reality the sought after litigation is not between child and parent but between child and parent's insurance carrier.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e agree with Judge Howard [who dissented in the Court of Appeals opinion in Streenz ] that "the role of paterfamilias should not be usurped by the judiciary as to intrafamilial activities involving parental discipline, care and control." 11 Ariz. App. [10] at 13, 461 P.2d [186] at 189 [(1969)]. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in Goller v. White, [ 20 Wis.2d 402 , 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963)] recognized this important aspect of parental discretion, and held that the parental immunity doctrine "ought to be abrogated except in these two situations: (1) Where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child; and (2) Where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care." 122 N.W.2d at 198 . These exceptions were more fully explained in a subsequent Wisconsin decision, Lemmen v. Servais, 39 Wis.2d 75 , 158 N.W.2d 341 (1968): "The immunity granted by these two exceptions is accorded the parent, not because he is a parent, but because as a parent he pursues a course within the family constellation which society exacts of him and which is beneficial to the state. The parental non-liability is not granted as a reward, but as a means of enabling the parents to discharge the duties which society exacts." 158 N.W.2d at 344 . While we are persuaded that parental immunity from tort action by an unemancipated child should be retain”
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.