Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 167 F.2d 745 - Radinsky v. Ellis

Radinsky v. Ellis’s Empirical Analysis

167 F.2d 745 · 1948

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
May 2007
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2007 · most notably City of Cleveland v. Peter Kiewit Sons' Co. (1980), Smith v. District of Columbia (1951)

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions

1701948195019601970198019902000decided

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 Sewall v. Fox · Paxson v. Davis · Hanley v. Fireproof Building Co. · Brooke v. Croson · Culp v. Repper

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

  1. “it is uniformly held that an ordinance requiring lot owners to keep the sidewalks free from snow and ice, and imposing a penalty for neglect or failure to do so, does not relieve the municipality of this primary duty with respect to the safety of its public streets, and does not impose a civil liability on the lot owner in favor of a third person injured by reason of its violation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “are publicly owned, and are controlled exclusively by the municipal authorities of the District. It is, therefore, primarily the duty of the local government to keep its sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition after a snowfall.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “In a case such as this, when the existence of insurance protection in favor of the defendant is shown to the jury, a mistrial should be declared forthwith.”
    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.