Tucker v. Collar’s Empirical Analysis
1955
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 70 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably McFarlin v. Hall (1980), Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District (1979)
2 federal appellate · 70 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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Crouse v. Wilbur-Ellis Co. · City of Phoenix v. Harlan · West v. Cruz · Mesa City v. Lesueur
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[bjefore liability may be imposed for an act, the prevision of a reasonable person must be able to recognize danger of harm to the plaintiff or one in plaintiff’s situation.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘Certain forms of conduct are negligent because they tend to subject certain interests of another to a particular hazard or type of hazard or to a limited number of hazards of a definite character. If so, the actor’s negligence lies in his subjecting the other to the particular hazard and he is liable only for such harm as results from the other’s exposure thereto.’ Restatement, Torts, section 281, Comment e on Clause 6, page 736. “In explanation of what is meant by the foregoing quotation is this statement: “ 'This follows from the rule stated in section 281, Comment e, which states that where the negligence of the act consists in its recognizable tendency to subject another to a particular hazard, the actor cannot be subject to liability 'for any harm occurring otherwise than by the other’s exposure to that hazard.’ Restatement, Torts, section 430, Comment c, page 1159.” 79 Ariz. at 147 , 285 P.2d at 182 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““A duty to exercise care arises from probabilities but not from bare possibilities of danger. In order that conduct be considered negligent, it must be shown that a reasonable and prudent man should have recognized that his action or failure to act would create an appreciable chance rather than a bare possibility that harm might be done. * * ' * * * * ‘‘A person is required to foresee and guard against only what usually happens or is likely to happen and he is not required to foresee and provide against that which is unusual and unlikely to happen. The proper test is whether or not the harm was likely to result from the person’s action or failure to act according to the usual experience of persons.””
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.