Scribner v. Summers’s Empirical Analysis
84 F.3d 554 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Pestey v. Cushman (2002), Judi Boisson American Country Quilts and Linens Inc v. Banian Ltd (2001)
11 federal appellate · 3 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 Arizona v. Hicks · FMC Corp. v. Holliday · New York v. Shore Realty Corp. · Etlin v. Etlin · New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]his task is better left to the district court in the first instance”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is a body of law on trespass claims arising from the movement of noxious liquids from one property to another. The New York Court of Appeals has held that: even when the polluting material has been deliberately put onto, or into, defendant’s land, he is not liable for his neighbor’s damage therefrom, unless he (defendant) had good reason to know or expect that subterranean and other conditions were such that there would be passage from defendant’s to plaintiffs land.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when the actor (a) acts for the purpose of causing it; or (b) knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct. 26 Id. at 559 (some internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 27 Plaintiffs cite Scribner I and argue that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find intentional misconduct by Xerox. We disagree. In Scribner I, we held that defendant's conduct was”
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.