State v. Abbott’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
1 district · 103 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably 371 So. 2d 1010 - Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty. (1979), Adams v. State (1976)
1 district · 103 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680
Relies on Dalehite v. United States · Indian Towing Company v. United States · Rayonier Incorporated v. United States a Arnhold · 69 Cal. 2d 782 - Johnson v. State of California · 55 Cal. 2d 211 - Muskopf v. Corning Hospital District
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Normally, in order to satisfy the substantial factor test it must be shown both that the accident would not have happened “but for” the defendant’s negligence and that the negligent act was so important in bringing about the injury that reasonable men would regard it as a cause and attach responsibility to it.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Although it is true, as the state contends, that the district engineer's decision as to how many men and how much equipment were necessary to maintain this particular stretch of highway involved a certain amount of planning and discretion, it is not the kind of broad policy decision at which the exception ... is aimed. Once the initial policy determination is made to maintain the highway through the winter by salting, sanding and plowing it, the individual district engineer's decisions as to how that decision should be carried out in terms of men and machinery is made at the operational level.... Once the basic decision to maintain the highway in a safe condition throughout the winter is reached, the state should not be given discretion to do so negligently.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“A person or corporation having a ... tort claim against the state may bring an action against the state.... However, an action may not be brought under this section if the claim (1) is an action for tort ... based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a state agency or an employee of the state, whether or not the discretion involved is abused[.]”
8 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.