Jack Jeffries v. Potomac Development Corporation v. Erwin F. Simon & Associates and Thomas L. Watson, Third-Party’s Empirical Analysis
822 F.2d 87 · 1987
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Langevine v. District of Columbia (1997), Nyman v. Chairman, Federal Deposit Insurance (1997)
14 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 294 · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act)
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Gotthelf v. Commissioner · Consolidated Gas Electric Light & Power Co. v. Pennsylvania Water & Power Co. · Alonzo Wayne Taylor v. The Washington Terminal Company · Wilson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although a uniform test for determining when the transgression of statutory or regulatory safety standards constitutes negligence per se has proved elusive, there is general agreement on the principle that such transgressions are at least relevant to the issue of whether the transgressor has been negligent.”) 9 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“beyond all reason, or ... is so great as to shock the conscience [or] ... is so inordinately large as obviously to exceed the maximum limit of a reasonable range within which the jury may properly operate.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] plaintiff is considered a 'licensee by invitation,' rather than a 'bare licensee' or trespasser, if he is invited onto the defendant's land 'by some affirmative act or by appearances which would justify a reasonable person in believing that such landowner (or occupant) had given his consent to the entry.' "). 23 Having found that Foshee was such a "licensee by invitation,”
1 later decision 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.