Martin v. Surman’s Empirical Analysis
1904
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1938
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 Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Hessions · Sunasack v. Morey · Chicago City Railway Co. v. Canevin · 88 Ill. App. 191 - Quinn v. Crowe · Wierzbicky v. Illinois Steel Co.
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the case at bar the danger was apparent to the plaintiff — defendant in error here — and she had no right to go on carelessly exposing herself to a known and obvious danger, and rely upon the landlord’s alleged promise to repair to afford, not immunity from- injury, but compensation for injuries resulting proximately from her own carelessness. That one cannot recover for injuries suffered in consequence of his or her contributory negligence as a proximate cause is the established law in this state.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pollack v. Perry
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.