Holden v. Carmean’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently November 1983
13 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 Fitz Simons & Connell Co. v. Braun & Fitts · Sowers v. McManus · Stout Lumber Company v. Reynolds · St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Howard · Goodman v. Schwind
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““You are instructed that dynamite is a highly dangereous article or instrumentality, and any one using it in a crowded city for blasting is required to use more than ordinary care. The one so using it is required to use the utmost care to prevent injury to property of others. If you find from the evidence that defendant failed to use the utmost care in the use of the dynamite in this case, then you must return a verdict for the plaintiff.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““We have several times said that extreme care must be observed in the use of so dangerous a substance as dynamite. In Sowers v. McManus, 214 Pa. 244, 245 , 63 A. 601 , the present Chief Justice said that the general rule in cases of the explosion of dynamite, where third parties having no relation to the person having it in possession are injured, is that the highest degree of care must be exercised.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The trial court held that the mere excavation of the Rogoski part of the lot conferred upon appellant no cause of action, and we concur in that view. Rogoski had the right to excavate his property to the grade line of the streets, and if appellant -was injured thereby it was, so far as Rogoski was concerned, damnum absque injuriad’”
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.