13 Mass. App. Ct. 75 - Stock v. Fife’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 15 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently January 2018 · most notably Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc. (1997), Kurker v. Hell (1998)
5 federal appellate · 15 district · 32 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 Community National Bank v. Dawes · Cardullo v. Landau · Adamian v. Three Sons, Inc. · Shultz v. Old Colony Street Railway Co. · Slicer v. Quigley
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the tort field, the doctrine [of section 876] appears to be reserved for application to facts which manifest a common plan to commit a tortious act where the participants know of the plan and its purpose and take affirmative steps to encourage the achievement of the result. ... “[T]he mere presence of the particular defendant at the commission of the wrong, or his failure to object to it, is not enough to charge him with responsibility.” [Citing Prosser.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“knows that the ... conduct [of another person] constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“in the circumstances of this case: 27 Agreements for a common social purpose might be sufficient to establish a claim in a few jurisdictions, but they do not make out a joint enterprise in Massachusetts. 28 In context, however, the quotation does not support plaintiffs' arguments. The Stock court pointed out that the key element in determining whether or not a joint enterprise exists is the element of common control. It said (in the language just quoted) that to show an agreement for a”
1 later decision 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.