Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 447 MASS 141 - Jupin v. Kask

Jupin v. Kask’s Empirical Analysis

2006

Citation profile

148
cited by 148 later decisions
4
states following
March 2022
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 20 district · 121 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably Lev v. Beverly Enterprises-Massachusetts, Inc. (2010), Leavitt v. Brockton Hospital, Inc. (2009)

7 federal appellate · 20 district · 121 state decisions

820200620102020decided

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 Kourouvacilis v. General Motors Corp. · Dillon v. Legg · 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · Mullins v. Pine Manor College · Coveney v. President & Trustees of the College of the Holy Cross

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

  1. “To prevail on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of reasonable care, that the defendant breached this duty, that damage resulted, and that there was a causal relation between the breach of the duty and the damage.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he existence [or nonexistence] of a duty is a question of law, and is thus an appropriate subject of summary judgment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm ... in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user.””
    2 later decisions 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.