Wangler v. Harvey’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
2 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably Gantes v. Kason Corp. (1996), Mirza v. Filmore Corp. (1983)
2 district · 45 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 Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Great Northern Ry Co v. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co · Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom · Western Air Lines, Inc. v. California · Lamb v. Schmitt
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 49 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in a direction wholly inconsistent with today's concept of justice,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A point is made that the revision of the immunity rule should be prospective in its application. Such a contention would seem to be based on a concept of reliance. We find the suggestion without merit in the present case. It is doubtful that any defendant could justifiably rely on the rule after the expressions of dissatisfaction with the immunity concepts which appear in Korff [Korff v. G. & G. Corp., 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 ] and Grober [Grober v. Kahn, 76 N.J.Super. 252 , 184 A.2d 161 ], supra. In any event there is nothing in the record to indicate that the defendant did place any actual reliance on the doctrine. Under such circumstances there is no reason for declining to apply the usual rule under which the overruling of a decision has retrospective effect. See Dalton v. St. Luke’s Catholic Church, 27 N.J. 22, 26 , 141 A.2d 273 (1958); Arrow, Builders Supply Corp., v. Hudson Terrace Apts., 16 N.J. 47, 49 , 106 A.2d 271 (1954).” Wangler v. Harvey, 41 N.J. 277 , 196 A.2d 513, 518 (1963).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jones v. Watson“There is no real indication that the purpose of this rule was to authorize substituted service of process in the home state of a nonresident in a cause of action arising from an isolated tort committed in New Jersey. In some jurisdictions such service may be made (and its constitutionality has been sustained) on a nonresident who has caused an event to occur in the state out of which the claim arose.”
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.