Babbage v. . Powers’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 72 state decisions

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

1. ““The law holds those who impair the safety of a public street to a strict liability. Thus, in Congreve v. Smith, 18 N. Y. 79 , it was said that ‘persons who, without special authority, make or continue a covered excavation in a public street or highway for a private purpose, should be responsible for all injuries to individuals resulting from the street or highway being thereby less safe for its appropriate use. * * * The general doctrine is that the public are entitled to the street or highway in the condition in which they placed It, and whoever, without special authority, materially obstructs it, or renders its use hazardous by doing anything upon, above or below the surface, is guilty of a nuisance. * * * No question of negligence can arise; the act being wrongful.’ * * * Assuming, however, the rule to be as stated in the Congreve Oases, supra, when the excavation is made without authority (Clifford v. Dam, 81 N. Y. 52 , 56), it is clear that, when it is made with the consent of the proper municipal officers, the rule of liability relaxes its severity and rests upon the ordinary principles governing actions of negligence. The person receiving .the license is held to impliedly agree to perform the act permitted with due care for the safety of the public, and is made liable for any violation of duty in this regard. Village of Port Jarvis v. First National Bank, 90 N. Y. 550 , 556; Clifford v. Dam, 81 N. Y. 52 ; Dickinson v. Mayor, etc., 92 N. Y. 584 , 587; Village of Seneca”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sanford v. White

2. ““When conditions, whether express or implied, are annexed to the license [to do an act in a public street],, substantial compliance therewith is essential to the protection of the licensee; but consent and compliance relieve the owner from the imputation of trespassing in doing the act consented to, and place him in the position of one liable for negligence only. Wolf v. Kilpatrick, 101 N. Y. 146 , 4 N. E. 188 , 54 Am. Rep. 672 ; Nolan v. King, 97 N. Y. 565 , 49 Am. Rep. 561 ; Elliott on Roads and Streets, p. 541.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sanford v. White

3. ““It is clear that when it [an excavation in the public street] is made with (he consent of the proper municipal officers, the rule of liability relaxes its severity, and rests upon the ordinary principles governing actions of negligence.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haskell v. Cutting