Workman v. United Methodist Committee on Relief of the General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church’s Empirical Analysis
320 F.3d 259 · 2003
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 16 district · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Kline v. 1500 Massachusetts Avenue Apartment Corp. · McKethean v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · District of Columbia v. Doe · DeGraff v. District of Columbia · Potts v. District of Columbia
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[District of Columbia] cases suggest a sliding scale: If the relationship between the parties strongly suggests a duty of protection, then specific evidence of foreseeability is less important, whereas if the relationship is not of a type that entails a duty of protection, then the evidentiary hurdle is higher.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Ordinarily, the relationship between the parties is the key to determining whether the defendant had a legally enforceable duty to the plaintiff (or her decedent), whereas foreseeability is important to issues of proximate causation and conformity to the standard of care, issues that arise only after a duty has been found.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“D.C. courts have repeatedly spoken of the heightened foreseeability requirement in terms of duty. We see no need to reconsider that framework of analysis in this case.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.