Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 226 PASUPER 45 - Scheel v. Tremblay

Scheel v. Tremblay’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
8
states following
July 2009
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 2009 · most notably Grainy Ex Rel. Grainy v. Campbell (1981), 725 So. 2d 721 - Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Lumpkin (1998)

28 state decisions

1401973198019902000decided

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 FLICKINGER ESTATE v. Ritsky · Nelson v. Duquesne Light Co. · 5 Cal. 2d 54 - Norton v. City of Pomona · Stern v. International Railway Co. · Peninsular Telephone Co. v. Marks, Et Vir

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

  1. ““The poles, if placed and maintained with due regard for the public safety, are not unlawful obstructions---- [TJhey must be so located as to avoid unreasonable danger to travelers upon the highway.... The question is whether the place chosen is so dangerous and the danger so needless that the choice becomes unreasonable.. If danger in that degree is present ... [the utility] is hable____ The question, therefore, is whether there is any evidence that ... when the accident occurred, the location of these poles was dangerous, and that the danger was unreasonable.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “a slight deviation from the paved portion of a road should be deemed such an extraordinary event”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm to users of the highway,”
    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.