Hanson v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1938
Citation profile
1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently March 2019
1 district · 15 state decisions
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 Truax v. Corrigan · American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council · Senn v. Tile Layers Protective Union · Vegelahn v. Guntner · McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The intentional invasion of the rights of another has been termed wilful negligence. However wilful such act may be, it is in no sense negligent. The very fact that an act is characterized as negligent indicates that harm to another as the result of it was neither foreseen nor intended, although a reasonable man would have foreseen danger to others because of it and would have adopted another course of conduct. Wilful negligence embraces conduct where the infringement of another’s right is not only intended but also it is foreseen that the conduct pursued will result in such invasion. Mueller v. Dewey, 159 Minn. 173 , 198 N. W. 428 ; Anderson v. Commr. of Internal Revenue [10 Cir.] 81 F. (2d) 457, 104 A. L. R. 676; Restatement, Torts, § 282, comments c, d, § 500, comments f, g. “Admittedly, defendants intended to invade plaintiff’s right to the reasonable use of the highway for purposes of travel. Where an action is based on an unintentional invasion of another’s right, the contributory negligence of plaintiff is a proper offset to defendant’s liability. McFarlane v. City of Niagara Falls, 247 N. Y. 340 , 160 N. E. 391, 57 A. L. R. 1. But where the action is based on an invasion which is both intentional and criminal, the mere negligence of the person whose rights are invaded is no adequate defense. Lambrecht v. Schreyer, 129 Minn. 271 , 152 N. W. 645 , L. R. A. 1915E, 812; Mueller v. Dewey, 159 Minn. 173 , 198 N. W. 428 ; Hinkle v. M. A. & C. R. Ry. Co. 162 Minn. 112 , 202 ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Dart v. Pure Oil Co.““Beyond question, it is lawful for workingmen to combine and to strike for the purposes of raising wages, shortening hours, improving working conditions, and securing union recognition. Unassailable also is their right to inform the public, by means of pickets bannering an employer’s place of business, of their grievances which give rise to the strike.””
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.