Fogg v. MacAluso’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
2 district · 117 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Davison v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office (2004), Walton v. State (1998)
2 district · 117 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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)
Relies on United States v. Testan · United States v. Sherwood · United States v. Dalm · Walgren v. United States · Evans v. Board of County Commissioners
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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) A public entity shall be immune from liability in all claims for injury which lie in tort.... Sovereign immunity is waived by a public entity in an action for injuries resulting from: [[Image here]] (d) A dangerous condition of a public highway, road, or street which physically interferes with the movement of traffic on the paved portion, if paved, or on the portion customarily used for travel by motor vehicles, if unpaved, of any public highway, road, street, or sidewalk within the corporate limits of any municipality....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“1: an unforeseen combination of circumstances or the resulting state that calls for immediate action 2: a pressing need: EXIGENCY.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The operation of a motor vehicle, owned or leased by such public entity, by a public employee while in the course of employment.... [[Image here]] (d)(1) A dangerous condition of a public highway, road, or street which physically interferes with the movement of traffic.... Nothing in this subparagraph (I) shall preclude a particular dangerous accumulation of snow, ice, sand, or gravel from being found to constitute a dangerous condition in the surface of a public roadway when the entity fails to use existing means available to it for removal or mitigation of such accumulation and when the public entity had actual notice through the proper public official responsible for the roadway and had a reasonable time to act.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kallage v. Alvidrez
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.