Turner v. Jordan’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Staples v. CBL & Associates, Inc. (2000), Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc. (1998)
4 federal appellate · 47 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 · 100 Wash. 2d 421 - Petersen v. State · Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc. · Bain v. Wells · Durflinger v. Artiles
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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Nlegligent and intentional torts are different in degree, in kind, and in society's view of the relative culpability of each act.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“Several factors must be considered in determining whether a risk is an unreasonable one. Those factors include [ (1) ] the foreseeable probability of the harm or injury occurring; [ (2) ] the possible magnitude of the potential harm or injury; [ (3) ] the importance or social value of the activity engaged in by defendant; [ (4) ] the usefulness of the conduct to defendant; [ (5) ] the feasibility of alternative, safer conduct and the relative costs and burdens associated with that conduct; [ (6) ] the relative usefulness of the safer conduct; [ (7) ] and the relative safety of alternative conduct.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Accordingly, the concern in cases that compare the negligence of a defendant with the intentional act of a third party is not burdening the neghgent tortfeasor with liability in excess of his or her fault; conversely, the primary concern in those cases that do not compare is- that the plaintiff not be penalized by allowing the neghgent party to use the intentional act it had a duty to prevent to reduce its liability.”
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.