Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 120 Colo. 156 - Fish v. Liley

Fish v. Liley’s Empirical Analysis

1949

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

10 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably McSwain v. McSwain (1966), Jones v. Hildebrant (1977)

10 district · 40 state decisions

16019491950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Burns v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad · Prouty v. City of Chicago · Moffatt v. Tenney · Devine v. Healy · Hayes v. Williams

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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect, or default of another, and the act, neglect, or default is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages in respect thereof, then, and in every such case, the person who or the corporation which would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable in an action for damages notwithstanding the death of the party injured.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Properly considered ... the Death Act is not a survival statute. This is true for the reason that the cause of action created by this statute is separate and distinct from the action which the deceased would have for personal injuries had he survived. The wife’s action is rooted in the statute itself and the elements of her damage are essentially different from those proper for consideration in a personal injury action to which her injured husband would have been entitled if death had not ensued.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"[I]n every such action the jury may give such damages as they may deem fair and just, with reference to the necessary injury resulting from such death, to the surviving parties who may be entitled to sue; and also having regard to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances attending any such wrongful act, neglect, or default . . . ."”
    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.