Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 174 Neb. 732 - Kasparek v. May

Kasparek v. May’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
4
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently April 2010 · most notably Neujahr v. Neujahr (1986), Smeal Fire Apparatus Co. v. Kreikemeier (2010)

50 state decisions

140196319701980199020002010decided

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 Leeman v. Vocelka · McFarland v. State · State Ex Rel. Beck v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. · Whipple v. Nelson · Rose v. Vonderfecht

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

  1. “In some jurisdictions, a fine may be imposed for the indemnification of the person who has been damaged by the failure to perform. We are not in accord with these holdings, and state that indemnity for damages cannot be secured in a contempt proceeding. ... If Kasparek suffered . . . damages, his remedy is an action at law for the subsequent damage. Civil contempt is available to enforce the decree actually rendered, not to afford a remedy for the recovery of subsequent damage.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “required the performance of specific acts. The 1956 decree was definite, and, while it did not give exact measurements, the obvious intention is readily apparent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “If [the adjacent landowner] suffered further damages, his remedy is an action at law for the subsequent damage.”
    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.