Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 414 Mass. 496 - Jean W. v. Commonwealth

Jean W. v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
15
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 12 district · 68 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Horta v. Sullivan (1993), Wallace v. Ohio Department of Commerce (2002)

5 federal appellate · 12 district · 68 state decisions — followed in 15 states

450199320002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Gordon v. Bridgeport Housing Authority · Nader v. Citron · Shore v. Town of Stonington · 34 Cal. 3d 18 - Williams v. State of California · Mullins v. Pine Manor College

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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “`have not managed to draw an intellectually defensible line between immune”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “The Restatement (Second) of Torts § 315 recognizes two types of special relationships that may form the basis of an exception to the general principle that a person has no duty to control the conduct of a third person. One exception is based on the finding of a special relation between the actor (i.e. the person whose duty is at issue) and the potential plaintiff.... The other exception set forth in the Restatement arises when there is a special relation between the actor and the third person. We have been criticized for overlooking this portion of the Restatement in our analy-ses .... ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[i]n the absence of special assurances having been given, the law imposes no duty on a private individual carefully to extinguish a fire he did not cause, or carefully to remove an intoxicated motorist from the highway whose intoxication or presence on the highway he did not bring about.”
    1 later decision 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.