Fanstiel v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently February 1996 · most notably Walker v. Colorado Springs Sun, Inc. (1975), Pettingell v. Moede (1954)
8 federal appellate · 2 district · 16 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 130 Ohio St. 567 - Universal Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bassett · Reilly v. Philadelphia · Millington v. Hiedloff · Coryell v. Lawson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Body execution in tort, when. In any civil action in any court of record where it appears from the summons and other papers in the cause that the action is founded upon tort, and upon trial of the cause the finding is in favor of the plaintiff, and the verdict of the jury or the finding of the court, if tried without a jury, states that in committing the tort complained of any one or more of the defendants were guilty of either malice, fraud, willful deceit, or neglegence consisting of a reckless or willful disregard of the rights or safety of others, than the plaintiff may have execution as provided in this article against the body of any defendant against whom such finding was had or any judgment rendered on any such finding. In no case shall an execution issue against the body of a person when the person has been convicted in a criminal prosecution for the same wrong." [Emphasis added.] Section 13-59-103, C.R.S. 1973.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The actor's conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he intentionally does an act or fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize that the actor's conduct not only creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to the other but also involves a high degree of probability that substantial harm will result to him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“112 The requirements of the statute, we think, are well stated in Restatement of the Law--Torts, page 1293, chapter 19, section 500:”
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.