Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 N.J. 347 - Tice v. Cramer

Tice v. Cramer’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

131
cited by 131 later decisions
7
states following
March 2015
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 8 district · 113 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably City of Lancaster v. Chambers (1994), O'CONNELL v. State (2002)

6 federal appellate · 8 district · 113 state decisions

590199320002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · City of Canton v. Harris · Tennessee v. Garner · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos. · Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council

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

  1. “Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for: ... any injury caused by ... an escaping or escaped person[.]”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “a. A public entity is liable for injury proximately caused by an act or omission of a public employee within the scope of his employment in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances. b. A public entity is not liable for an injury resulting from an act or omission of a public employee where the public employee is not liable.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “A public employee is not liable for the failure to provide supervision of public recreational facilities. Nothing in this section exonerates a public employee for negligence in the supervision of a public recreational facility.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.