Mostert v. CBL & Associates’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
1 district · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Herrig v. Herrig (1992), Matter of Paternity of JRW (1991)
1 district · 53 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 17 Cal. 3d 425 - Tarasoff v. Regents of University of California · 56 Ill. 2d 372 - Cunis v. Brennan · 100 Wash. 2d 421 - Petersen v. State · Bielski v. Schulze · 128 Ohio St. 626 - J.C. Penny Co. v. Robinson
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (2) the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, (8) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, (4) the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct, (5) the policy of preventing future harm, (6) the extent of the burden upon the defendant, (7) the consequences to the community and the court system, and (8) the availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“"According to our standard of review we will sustain a dismissal of a complaint only if it shows on its face that the plaintiff was not entitled to relief under any set of facts. In considering such a motion, the `facts alleged in the complaint are admitted and the allegations must be viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs.' Dismissal is a drastic remedy, and is sparingly granted."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““[T]he courts have merely ‘reacted to the situation in the way in which the great mass of mankind customarily react,’ and that as our ideas of human relations change the law as to duties changes with them. Various factors undoubtedly have been given conscious or unconscious weight, including convenience of administration, capacity of the parties to bear the loss, a policy of preventing future injuries, the moral blame attached to the wrongdoer, and many others. Changing social conditions lead constantly to the recognition of new duties. No better general statement can be made than that the courts will find a duty where, in general, reasonable persons would recognize it and agree that it exists.” Prosser & Keaton on Torts, § 53, pp. 357-359 (5th ed.1984). “ * * * jU(jge’s function in a duty determination involves complex considerations of legal and social policies which will directly affect the essential determination of the limits to government protection. Consequently, * * * the imposition and scope of a legal duty is dependent not only on the factor of foreseeability ([Cunis v. Brennan ] 56 Ill.2d 372, 375 , 308 N.E.2d 617 ) but involves other considerations, including the magnitude of the risk involved in defendant’s conduct, the burden of re quiring defendant to guard against that risk, and the consequences of placing that burden upon the defendant. [Citations.]” Nelson by Tatum v. Commonwealth Edison Company, 124 Ill.App.3d 655, 662 , 80 Ill.Dec. 401 , 465 N.E.2d 513, 51”
4 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.