Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 178 Neb. 858 - Tober v. Hampton

Tober v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

1965

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
5
states following
December 2022
most recently cited

6 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently December 2022 · most notably National Crane Corp. v. Ohio Steel Tube Co. (1983), Royal Indemnity Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (1975)

6 district · 31 state decisions

1501965197019801990200020102020decided

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 Luckenbach v. W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining Co. · Union Stock Yards Company of Omaha v. Chicago Burlington Quincy Railroad Company · Shiman Bros. & Co. v. Nebraska National Hotel Co. · Long v. Magnolia Petroleum Company · 153 So. 2d 45 - Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Fellows

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

  1. ““Under Louisiana law, indemnity is restricted to cases where actual fault is attributed to one party and other party is only technically or constructively at fault, and indemnity is never applicable where both parties are actually in the wrong.” We think most courts which permit indemnity between tort-feasors follow this rule. It appears from the record that the Gas Company was more than technically or constructively at fault and would not be allowed indemnity in those states which permit it, and it should not be permitted here.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “In determining whether the right of contribution exists in favor of one wrong-doer against another the test is, must the party demanding contribution be presumed to have known that the act for which he has been compelled to respond was wrongful? If not, he may recover against one equally culpable, but otherwise he is without remedy.”
    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.