Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 14 SO2D 80 - Ross v. Tynes

Ross v. Tynes’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
3
states following
October 2000
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently October 2000

16 state decisions

601943195019601970198019902000decided

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 Bolin v. Corliss Co. · Rochefort v. Teche Lines, Inc. · Westlund v. Iverson · Franklin v. Illinois Cent. R. Co. · Walk v. Boudheim

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

  1. “"In our opinion the facts of this case, which are not in dispute, present a classic example of the proper application of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Plaintiff was killed while walking on the sidewalk by a double wheel which became detached from a passing truck. It follows that there is an inference, or presumption of negligence on the part of defendants. In other words, when an injury is caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of the defendant, as in this case, and it is such as would not ordinarily happen if the party having control of the instrumentality had used proper care, there arises an inference or presumption of negligence. * * *"”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “A latent defect is a hidden defect and generally involves the material out of which the thing is constructed.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In Bolin v. Corliss Co., 262 Mass. 115 , 159 N.E. 612 , 613, plaintiff, standing on the sidewalk, was struck by the rim of a tire which came off of a passing automobile. The Court said: 'In our opinion this evidence was not such to charge the defendant with negligence. In the absence of anything to show that the appliances were defective, the defendant was not required as a reasonable person to remove the rim and connections and inspect them, before permitting Casper to use the car .'”
    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.