Wickersham v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 district · 31 state decisions

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

1. “(a) . . . based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state agency or an employee of the state, whether or not the discretion be abused; (d)... arising out of... misrepresentation.... However, First National urges that its effort at recovery is defeated neither by the discretionary function exemption nor by the misrepresentation exception.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. First Nat. Bank of Omaha v. State · Hamilton v. City of Omaha

2. ““Jurisdiction is the inherent power or authority to decide a case; venue is the place of trial of an action — the site where the power to adjudicate is to be exercised.” State ex rel. Bauersachs v. Williams, 215 Neb. 757, 759 , 340 N.W.2d 431, 433 (1983). Clearly, under § 81-8,214 the district court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment concerning any tort claim defined in the State Tort Claims Act____ The question presented in Wickersham’s case is, Where did the act or omission occur? More simply, Where’s the venue? The answer to the question lies in the definition of the word occur. ... In reference to the State Tort Claims Act, § 81-8,214, “the county in which the act or omission occurred” means the site where the wrongful conduct actually takes place, not where the results of the wrongful conduct take place or occur. Occur does not include the results of the act or omission, but only the taking place, happening, or coming to pass____ ... In the final analysis, all people responsible for decisions and action regarding Wickersham’s problem were in Lancaster County. Consequently, the correct venue of Wickersham’s action is Lancaster County.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Blitzkie v. State

3. “When one under no obligation to act does undertake action, one must act with reasonable care. See Indian Towing Co. v. United States, [ 350 U.S. 61 , 76 S. Ct. 122 , 100 L. Ed. 48 (1955)]. . . . [A]n individual, must act with reasonable care in reference to action undertaken without an obligation to act. See Barnum v. Rural Fire Protection Company, 24 Ariz. App. 233 , 537 P.2d 618 (1975); accord Wolf v. City of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 568 , 349 N.E.2d 858 , 384 N.Y.S.2d 758 (1976). See, also, Wulf v. Rebbun, 25 Wis. 2d 499 , 131 N.W.2d 303 (1964). Having acted in this case, the State’s conduct must be evaluated by the standard of reasonable care.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dowis Ex Rel. Dowis v. Continental Elevator Co.