Bartholomee v. Casey’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 105 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates Ltd. Partnership (1996), Pittman v. Atlantic Realty Co. (2000)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 105 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 Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Armstrong · Bradshaw v. Prince George's County · Starfish Condominium Ass'n v. Yorkridge Service Corp. · Smith v. Bernfeld · Richwind Joint Venture 4 v. Brunson
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Both the expression “reason to know” and “should know” are used with respect to existent facts. These two phrases, however, differ in that “reason to know” implies no duty of knowledge on the part of the actor whereas “should know” implies that the actor owes another the duty of ascertaining the fact in question. “Reason to know” means that the actor has knowledge of facts from which a reasonable man of ordinary intelligence or one of the superior intelligence of the actor would either infer the existence of the fact in question or would regard its existence as so highly probable that his conduct would be predicated upon the assumption that the fact did exist. “Should know” indicates that the actor is under a duty to another to use reasonable diligence to ascertain the existence or non-existence of the fact in question and that he would ascertain the existence thereof in the proper performance of that duty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Without expert testimony that exposure during this window, by itself, was a substantial causation factor of [Jacqueline’s] lead poisoning, the jury [would have] to speculate as to the impact of exposure during that period....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“). We also distinguished in Bartholomee a failure to supply information properly requested in an interrogatory, evident early in a case, which could be”
2 later decisions 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.