Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 GA 657 - Ross v. Jackson

Ross v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis

1905

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
2
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Wynne v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. (1925), 30 Ga. App. 462 - Crossgrove v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad (1923)

50 state decisions

901905191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Stack v. Harris · Ocean Steamship Co. v. Hamilton

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

  1. “[t]he liability of a landlord for defective construction exists only in cases where the structure is built by him in person or under his supervision or direction. If a building were defectively constructed by a predecessor in title, and the landlord knew or by the exercise of reasonable diligence could have known of its improper construction before the tenancy was created, he would be answerable to the tenant, or to any one lawfully on the premises by invitation of the tenant, for injuries sustained by reason of his failure to put the premises in a safe condition, if the person sustaining the injuries could not have avoided the same by the exercise of ordinary care. (Emphasis supplied.) Ross v. Jackson, 123 Ga. 657, 659 ( 51 SE 578 ) (1905).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A tenant is entitled to exclusive occupancy [of leased premises] during the term of the tenancy, and it is [the tenant’s] duty, if the premises get out of repair, to notify the landlord of their defective condition. [Unless otherwise agreed,] [t]he landlord is under no duty to inspect the premises while the tenant is in possession in order to keep informed as to their condition.”
    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.