Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 Neb. Ct. App. 698 - Lackman v. Rousselle

7 Neb. Ct. App. 698 - Lackman v. Rousselle’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 2016

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

10199820002010decided

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 State v. McBride · Bartek v. Glasers Provisions Co. · Battle Creek State Bank v. Preusker · State v. Severin · Schwab v. Allou Corporation

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

  1. “In an action involving more than one defendant when two or more defendants as part of a common enterprise or plan act in concert and cause harm, the liability of each such defendant for economic and noneconomic damages shall be joint and several. In any other action involving more than one defendant, the liability of each defendant for economic damages shall be joint and several and the liability of each defendant for noneconomic damages shall be several only and shall not be joint. Each defendant shall be liable only for the amount of noneconomic damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to that defendant’s percentage of negligence, and a separate judgment shall be rendered against that defendant for that amount.”
    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.