Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 220 Mich. App. 183 - Ross v. Glaser

220 Mich. App. 183 - Ross v. Glaser’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently January 2018

6 state decisions

80199720002010decided

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.

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

  1. “In this case, defendant argues that he has no duty to control the conduct of third parties absent a special relationship to them, particularly when the conduct is criminal. He asserts that the father-son relationship is insufficient to establish the required special relationship that would impose a duty on him. The argument is unavailing. Michigan courts have distinguished active misconduct causing personal injury (misfeasance) and passive inaction or the failure to protect others from harm (nonfeasance). Generally, with respect to nonfeasance, there is no legal duty that obligates a person to aid or protect another. An exception has developed where a special relationship exists between the persons. However, defendant's act of handing a loaded gun to [his son] was not one of nonfeasance, but rather misfeasance. Therefore, the special relationship doctrine is inapplicable.... Instead, we must determine whether defendant had a duty to refrain from handing [his son] a loaded weapon.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “foreseeability is a necessary condition of duty, but not always a sufficient condition to establish duty[;][t]hat foreseeability alone is insufficient to establish duty does not mean that a lack of foreseeability is insufficient to establish a lack of duty”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “As to foreseeability, we determine whether it is foreseeable that the conduct may create a risk of harm to the victim and whether the result and intervening causes were foreseeable. [ Id. at 186-187 , 559 N.W.2d 331 (citations omitted).]”
    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.