Steele v. Rapp’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Jones v. Hittle Service, Inc. (1976), Blackmore v. Auer (1960)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 35 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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Stone v. Boston & Albany Railroad · Rowell v. City of Wichita · Noel Ex Rel. Noel v. Menninger Foundation · Sundgren v. Topeka Transportation Co.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'one who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the innocent act of a third person may have contributed to the final result.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The question is not whether it was a possible consequence, but whether it was probable, that is, likely to occur, according to the usual experience of mankind.... One is bound to anticipate and provide against what usually happens and what is likely to happen; but it would impose too heavy a responsibility to hold him bound in like manner to guard against what is unusual and unlikely to happen, or what, as it is sometimes said, is only remotely and slightly probable. A high degree of caution might, and perhaps would, guard against injurious consequences which are merely possible; but it is not negligence, in a legal sense, to omit to do so." 183 Kan. 378 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . the unintentional dropping of the bottle of volatile fluid, even if negligent of itself, does not relieve the defendant of his initial and primary liability for his negligence in placing in commerce a highly inflammable and explosive substance and failing to warn or advise users of the inherently dangerous character of the apparently innocuous substance sold and delivered to the beauty shop, when the defendant knew or should have known of its dangerous characteristics and should have reasonably apprehended that it would explode and bum if not handled with great care by employees of the beauty shop.” (p.384.) (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.