Hess v. Treece’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford (1988), McQuay v. Guntharp (1998)
2 federal appellate · 36 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · MBM Co., Inc. v. Counce · Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Broadway Arms Corp. · Tandy Corp. v. Bone · Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Herring
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The new and still developing tort of outrage is not easily established. It requires clear-cut proof. “Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.” [Citations omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“There was ample evidence to show that Hess was the moving force behind the repeated police investigations of Treece, and the fact that there was little face-to-face contact between the two men does not prevent a finding of proximate cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“conduct that is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hamaker v. Ivy
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.