Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 37 N.J. Super. 112 - MacGregor v. Tinker Realty Co.

37 N.J. Super. 112 - MacGregor v. Tinker Realty Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
November 1981
most recently cited

12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently November 1981

12 state decisions

401955196019701980decided

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 Saco v. Hall · Sewall v. Fox · Taggart v. Bouldin · Carey v. Gray · Kelly v. Bergen County Gas 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “A thorough inspection of the transcribed opening statement of the plaintiff's attorney discloses that he proposed to prove that the defendant's superintendent `had made a stab at giving some passageway'; that the path `was negligently dug out,' and that `there was a little layer of ice underneath this snow which the defendant did not clear up.' Nowhere in the opening statement can be discovered a proposal to prove that in excavating the path the defendant's superintendent created a new element of danger other than one caused by nature.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In considering the situation presented to the trial judge in the present case, our attention centers upon the decision in Taggart v. Bouldin, 111 N.J.L. 464 ( E. & A. 1933), in which it was held that an owner is under no duty to maintain the sidewalk abutting his land free from the natural accumulation of snow and ice. Nor is he liable, in clearing the sidewalk of snow and ice, unless through his negligence a new element of danger or hazard, other than one caused by natural forces, is added to the use of the sidewalk by a pedestrian.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.