Pittman v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
September 2024
most recently cited
2 district · 34 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Aw v. Lancaster County School Dist. 0001 · Unlimited Opportunity v. Waadah · Schroer v. Synowiecki · Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to make a risk of attack foreseeable, the circumstances to be considered must have a direct relationship to the harm incurred. Rivera’s prior conduct at the bar that night (i.e,, assaultive and threatening behavior toward Snyder and Hubbard) was completely different in nature from his later actions that harmed Pittman. There was'no evidence that Rivera knew Pittman, that he had any reason to assault Pittman, or that he would intentionally try to run over a person outside the bar. Hubbard, as an employee of 2nd Street, had promptly removed Rivera from the premises upon observing' his assaultive behavior and had observed him leaving the scene'with a designated driver. When Rivera returned to the premises and Hubbard discovered that- he was driving a vehicle, it was not reasonably foreseeable that Rivera would use his vehicle to assault Pittman.”
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.