Rieger v. Zackoski’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Wartnick v. Moss & Barnett (1992), Larson v. Larson (1985)
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 20 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 Springrose v. Willmore · Peterson v. Balach · Armstrong v. Mailand · Conover v. Northern States Power Co. · Kroeger v. Lee
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Its harmful effects must have occurred after the original negligence; (2) it must not have been brought about by the original negligence; (3) it must actively work to bring about a result which would not otherwise have followed from the original negligence; and (4) it must not have been reasonably foreseeable by the original wrongdoer.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e find that reasonable care in the circumstances of this case — high speed raceway, alcoholic beverages consumed throughout the weekend, place of amusement operated for profit by possessor— would entail a high degree of care. The duty increases as the risks, which the proprietor to some extent encourages, increase.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“is incorrect ... that the specific conduct of the third party must be foreseeable. It is sufficient ... that the unreasonable risk of harm attributable to the third party's conduct be foreseeable.”
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.