Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 N.M. 386 - Schmitz v. Smentowski

Schmitz v. Smentowski’s Empirical Analysis

1990

Citation profile

234
cited by 234 later decisions
6
states following
August 2022
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 56 district · 147 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 234 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College (1993), Cooper v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. (2002)

13 federal appellate · 56 district · 147 state decisions

10301990200020102020decided

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

Applies 26 U.S.C. § 1031

Relies on Wrenn v. Weinberger · Andrew Aikens v. State of Wisconsin No 3 Albert Huegin · Board of Education v. Farmingdale Classroom Teachers Ass'n · Advance Music Corp. v. American Tobacco Co. · Ramirez v. Armstrong

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

  1. “One who intentionally causes injury to another is subject to liability to the other for that injury, if his conduct is generally culpable and not justifiable under the circumstances. This liability may be imposed although the actor’s conduct does not come within a traditional category of tort liability.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[I]f at the close of the evidence, plaintiff's proof is susceptible to submission under one of the accepted categories of tort, the action should be submitted to the jury on that cause and not under prima facie tort.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[G]eneral allegations of conduct are sufficient, as long as they show that the party is entitled to relief and the averments are set forth with sufficient detail so that the parties and the court will have a fair idea of the action about which the party is complaining and can see the basis for relief.”
    3 later decisions 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.