Webb v. Jarvis’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 272 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 333 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Erie Insurance v. Hickman Ex Rel. Smith (1993), Mangold Ex Rel. Mangold v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources (2001)
24 federal appellate · 1 district · 272 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Miller v. Griesel · Neal, Admr. v. Home Builders, Inc. · J. I. Case Co. v. Sandefur · Barnes v. Mac Brown and Company, Inc. · Ayres v. Indian Heights Volunteer Fire Department, Inc.
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 333 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Imposition of a duty is limited to those instances where a reasonably foreseeable victim is injured by a reasonably foreseeable harm. Thus, part of the inquiry into the existence of a duty is concerned with exactly the same factors as is the inquiry into proximate cause. Both seek to find what consequences of the challenged conduct should have been foreseen by the actor who engaged in it. We examine what forces and human conduct should have appeared likely to come on the scene, and we weigh the dangers likely to flow from the challenged conduct in light of these forces and conduct.”
28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (8) public policy concerns.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Duty is not sacrosanct in itself, but is only an expression of the sum total of those considerations of public policy which lead the law to say that the plaintiff is entitled to protection.”
13 later decisions 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.