Doherty v. Arcade Hotel’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently February 1981
2 district · 12 state decisions
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 Commonwealth v. Pierce · Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Bunce · Ford v. Tremont Lumber Co. · Nutt v. Southern Pacific Co. · Rose v. Adelphia Hotel
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘ The principle which is applicable to the inquiry is thus stated by § 307, Restatement of the Law, Negligence: “ ‘It is negligence to use an instrumentality, whether a human being or thing, which the actor knows or should know to be so incompetent, inappropriate, or defective, that its use involves an unreasonable risk of harm to others.’ ” Doherty v. Arcade Hotel, supra.”
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.