Keck v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 12 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 134 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Gottshall (1994), Sinn v. Burd (1979)
12 federal appellate · 12 district · 94 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Tobin v. Grossman · Carey v. Pure Distributing Corp. · Leong Ex Rel. Petagno v. Takasaki · MacNeil v. Perkins · Towns v. Anderson
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 134 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) If the actor unintentionally causes emotional distress to another, he is subject to liability to the other for resulting illness or bodily harm if the actor (a) should have realized that his conduct involved an unreasonable risk of causing the distress, otherwise than by knowledge of the harm or peril of a third person, and (b) from facts known to him should have realized that the distress, if it were caused, might result in illness or bodily harm.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]n order for there to be recovery for the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress, the shock or mental anguish of the plaintiff must be manifested as a physical injury. Damages for emotional disturbance alone are too speculative.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“1. If the actor’s conduct is negligent as violating a duty of care designed to protect another from a fright or other emotional disturbance where the actor should recognize as involving the unreasonable risk of bodily harm, the fact that the harm results solely through the internal operation of the fright or other emo tional disturbance does not protect the actor from liability. 2. If the actor’s conduct is negligent as creating an unreasonable risk of causing bodily harm to another otherwise than by subjecting him to fright, shock or other similar and immediate emotional disturbance, the fact that such harm results solely from the internal operation of fright or other emotional disturbance does not protect the actor from liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Quinn v. Turner
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.