Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2003 ME 90 - Parrish v. Wright

Parrish v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
December 2013
most recently cited

5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Champagne v. Mid-Maine Medical Center · Mastriano v. Blyer · Rogers v. Jackson · 455 F. Supp. 1043 - Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. the Ship Fernview · Stewart Ex Rel. Stewart v. Aldrich

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

  1. “[w]e review a summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment has been entered to decide whether the parties’ statements of material facts and the referenced record evidence reveal a genuine issue of material fact. A material fact is one that has the potential to affect the outcome of the suit. A genuine issue exists when sufficient evidence requires a fact-finder to choose between competing versions of the truth at trial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “§ 509 Harm Done by Abnormally Dangerous Domestic Animals (1) A possessor of a domestic animal that he knows or has reason to know has dangerous propensities abnormal to its class, is subject to liability for harm done by the animal to another, although he has exercised the utmost care to prevent it from doing the harm. (2) This liability is limited to harm that results from the abnormally dangerous propensity of which the possessor knows or has reason to know.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “When an animal damages a person or that person’s property due to negligence of the animal’s owner or keeper, the owner or keeper of that animal is liable in a civil action to the person injured for the amount of damage done if the damage was not occasioned through the fault of the person injured.”
    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.