Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 462 F.2d 654 - Fulginiti v. Tocco

Fulginiti v. Tocco’s Empirical Analysis

462 F.2d 654 · 1972

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
November 1992
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1992

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

20197219801990decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Pauling v. McElroy · Lind v. Schenley Industries Inc. · Wytupeck v. City of Camden · Anderson v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

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

  1. ““To begin with, there is virtually no condition upon any land with which a child may not possibly get himself into trouble. He may choke to death upon a green apple, pick up a stick and poke it into his eye, or have his skull fractured by a rock found and thrown by his companion. Children may, and do, do practically everything. Unless the possessor is to shoulder the impossible burden of making his land completely “childproof,” which might mean razing it to the bare earth, something more is called for than the general possibility of somehow coming to some harm which follows the child everywhere throughout his daily existence.””
    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.