Weber v. Madison’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently November 2009 · most notably Thompson v. Kaczinski (2009), Wilson v. Nepstad (1979)
34 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 Lindquist v. Des Moines Union Railway Co. · Hawkeye-Security Insurance v. Lowe Construction Co. · Robinson Mining Co. v. Tolbert · Patz v. Farmegg Products, Inc. · Symmonds v. CHICAGO, M., ST. P. & PR CO.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Overruling or sustaining a motion to dismiss does not depend upon trial court’s discretion. It must rest on legal grounds and is subject to review by this court, (citation) “A motion to dismiss is a waiver of any ambiguity or uncertainty in the pleadings. (citation) Such a motion grounded on failure to state a cause of action is sustainable only when it appears to a certainty the pleader has failed to state a claim upon which any relief may be granted under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim asserted. In making this determination the pleading should be construed in the light most favorable to the pleader with doubts resolved in his favor and the challenged allegations accepted as true, (citations)” — Weber v. Madison, 251 N.W.2d 523, 525 (Iowa 1977)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“The tendency of modern decisions is to restore the old common-law rule imposing liability with respect to all free-ranging animals.... A flock of large geese on the highway obviously presents a more dangerous hazard to today’s fast-moving vehicles with under-slung chassis and minimal fender clearance.... We hold neither the “free commoner” status of geese nor the failure of the legislature to statutorily prohibit the owner from permitting geese to run at large will excuse an owner from negligently permitting them to be unattended on a traveled highway if their presence there creates a hazard to the motoring public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[wjhile an abutting landowner is not liable with respect to highway hazards over which he has no control, he is under an obligation to use reasonable care to keep his premises in such condition as to not create hazards in the adjoining highway. He must conduct operations on his land in such a manner as to not injure the highway traveler. He may be subject to liability for physical harm caused by an excavation or other artificial condition on his land which is so near an existing highway that he realizes or should realize it involves an unreasonable risk to highway travelers using reasonable care.”
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.