Wilson v. Nepstad’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 468 So. 2d 912 - Trianon Park Condominium v. City of Hialeah (1985), Schear v. Board of County Commissioners (1984)
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Mayle v. Pennsylvania Department of Highways · Crane v. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Railway Co. · 74 Wis. 2d 526 - Coffey v. City of Milwaukee · Hicks v. State · 89 Wash. 2d 673 - Halvorson v. Dahl
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e consider that the “duty to all, duty to no-one” doctrine is in realty a form of sovereign immunity, which is a matter dealt with by statute in Alaska, and not to be amplified by court-created doctrine. An application of the public duty doctrine here would result in finding no duty owed the plaintiffs or their decedents by the state, because, although they were foreseeable victims and a private defendant would have owed such a duty, no “special relationship” between the parties existed. Why should the establishment of duty become more difficult when the state is the defendant? Where there is no immunity, the state is to be treated like a private litigant. To allow the public duty doctrine to disturb this equality would create immunity where the legislature has not.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“for the protection of ... lawful occupants of multiple dwellings”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“and provided in part, The court will not adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively .... (b) to secure to individuals the enjoyment of rights or privileges to which they are entitled only as members of the public.... Restatement (Second) of Torts § 288, at 29 (Am. Law Inst. 1965). Restatement (Third) section 14 is entitled”
2 later decisions 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.