Hage v. Stade’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
2 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2014
2 district · 10 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 371 So. 2d 1010 - Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty. · 74 Wis. 2d 526 - Coffey v. City of Milwaukee · Riss v. City of New York · 89 Wash. 2d 673 - Halvorson v. Dahl · Pacific Indemnity Co. v. Thompson-Yaeger, Inc.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At what point, then, does the municipality assume to act for the protection of others as distinguished from acting merely for itself when it inspects the activities of third parties for fire code violations? There is no bright line. But, without intending to be exhaustive, there are at least four factors which should be considered. First, actual knowledge of the dangerous condition is a factor which tends to impose a duty of care on the municipality. Second, reasonable reliance by persons on the municipality’s representations and conduct tends to impose a duty of care. Of course, reliance on the inspection in general is not sufficient. Instead, the reasonable reliance must be based on specific actions or representations which cause the persons to forego other alternatives of protecting themselves. Third, a duty of care may be created by an ordinance or statute that sets forth mandatory acts clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons rather than the public as a whole. Finally, the municipality must use due care to avoid increasing the risk of harm.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Andrade v. Ellefson“The principle is that a governmental unit owes a particular individual a duty of care when its officer or agent, in a position and with authority to act, has or should have had knowledge of a condition that violates safety standards prescribed by statute or regulation, and that presents a risk of serious harm to the individual or his property. When such serious injury is reasonably foreseeable, the governmental unit has a duty to exercise reasonable care for the individual’s safety.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Andrade v. Ellefson“(1) the municipality had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition; (2) the injured party reasonably relied on representations and conduct of the municipality or its agents so as to forego other ways of protecting himself; (3) the duty of care was created by an ordinance or statute setting forth mandatory acts for protections of a particular class; and (4) the municipality did not exercise due care to avoid increasing the risk of harm.”
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.