Hannah v. Jensen’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Berko v. Freda (1983), Flowers v. Rock Creek Terrace Ltd. Partnership (1987)
1 district · 23 state decisions — followed in 10 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 20 Cal. 3d 199 - Walters v. Sloan · Armstrong v. Mailand · Hahn v. City of Ortonville · Zerby v. Warren · Ross v. Ross
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A police officer certainly can anticipate that an intoxicated person, whom the officer is called to subdue, may become aggressive or even violent. The risk of injury from such a person is an inherent part of police work, just as the danger of explosion is an inherent part of firefighting. In performing his official duties, [the officer] manifested his consent to assume the risks he could reasonably anticipate would accompany those duties. Therefore, the rationale of the fireman’s rule clearly applies to this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lang v. Glusica“Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person who is injured in person or property, or means of support, by an intoxicated person, or by the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his own name, against any person who, by illegally selling or bartering intoxicating liquors, caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages, sustained * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pottebaum v. Hinds
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.