Brown v. Kistleman’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently May 2001 · most notably Hopson v. St. Mary's Hospital (1979), Mendillo v. Board of Education (1998)
14 federal appellate · 2 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Nolin v. Pearson · Feneff v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad · Haynes v. Nowlin · Holmes v. Holmes · Postlewaite v. Postlewaite
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The actions by husbands at common law for expenses and loss of services, in which the loss of consortium has been considered in estimating damages, were all in cases in which no damages could be awarded for loss of the ability to earn money and render services and be helpful to others, in an action by the husband and wife for the wife's personal damages, because at common law all these elements of damage belonged to the husband. * * * There was not an allowance to the wife for her loss of ability to earn wages and render services, and at the same time an allowance to the husband, in the form of compensation for the loss of consortium for the same diminution of ability to be helpful. * * * When the injury is to the person of another, the impairment of ability to work and be helpful and render services of any kind is paid for in full to the person injured.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Her loss is that which usually occurs to a wife from the illness of a husband, in the deprivation of support and consortium, and the need of her personal care for him during his sickness. No case is cited where the wife recovered upon such a claim, and the absence of precedent, where such demands might have been numerous, if sustained by the law, goes far to the belief that such, negligence has never yet been embraced within the circle of causes of action recognized by law, beyond the right given to the injured one, and its survival to the! consort and next of kin in the event of his death.””
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.