Anicet v. Gant’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
1 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2016
1 district · 19 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
Relies on Krauth v. Israel Geller and Buckingham Homes, Inc. · Hialeah, Inc. v. Bell · 84 Wash. 2d 975 - Maltman v. Sauer · 501 So. 2d 1279 - Herring v. State · Rosa v. Dunkin' Donuts of Passaic
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is the fireman's business to deal with [fire] hazard and hence, perhaps by analogy to the contractor engaged as an expert to remedy dangerous situations, he cannot complain of negligence in the creation of the very occasion for his engagement. In terms of duty, it may be said there is none owed the fireman to exercise care so as not to require the special services for which he is trained and paid.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[W]e conclude that no duty to refrain from violent conduct arises on the part of a person who has no capacity to control it to one who is specifically employed to do just that.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a person specifically hired to encounter and combat particular dangers is owed no independent tort duty by those who have created those dangers-even though ... the landowner or other defendant is actually guilty of negligence or of other fault in creating the dangers,”
1 later decision 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.