Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 185 F.2d 108 - Denney v. United States

Denney v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

185 F.2d 108 · 1950

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
December 1994
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently December 1994

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions

5019501960197019801990decided

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 District of Columbia v. Moulton · Yaniger v. Calvert Bldg. & Construction Co. · Archuleta v. Jacobs · Thayer v. Denver & Rio Grande R. R. · Gray v. Esslinger

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

  1. “. Although the term “nuisance” defies universal definition, in legal contemplation it may fairly be said to be the unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use of property, which causes injury, damages, hurt, inconvenience, annoyance or discomfort to one in the legitimate enjoyment of his reasonable right of person or property. Nuisances are classified as nuisances per se and nuisances in fact. A nuisance per se is generally defined as an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of location or surroundings, while a nuisance in fact is commonly defined as an act, occupation or structure not a nuisance per se, but one which may become a nuisance by reason of circumstances, location or surroundings. But, in either case, once a nuisance is established strict liability is imposed, unless an efficient intervening cause operates to insulate the defendant from liability. [Emphasis added.]”
    5 later decisions 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.