Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 192 F.2d 175 - Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co.

Caraglio v. Frontier Power Co.’s Empirical Analysis

192 F.2d 175 · 1951

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
5
states following
July 2012
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2012

3 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

701951196019701980199020002010decided

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 United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt · Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton · New York Co v. Fruchter · Silva v. Waldie · 141 Ohio St. 347 - Hetrick v. Marion-Reserve Power 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It appears to be well settled that an electric company cannot validly contract against its liability for negligence since such stipulation would be in contravention of public policy. As stated by the North Carolina Supreme Court: ‘Any other holding would put the individual or corporation using and paying for its power at the mercy’ of such company.” “A power company engaged in distributing electric current over its wires to consumers is not an insurer of the safety of the consumer or anyone else, although the company must exercise a high degree of care to protect those likely to come in contact with its wires. The care required is that commensurate with the dangerous character of the business and consistent with its practical operation, and it extends not only to the erection, maintenance, and operation of the company’s plant and apparatus, but also to an inspection thereof and to the discovery of defects. ‡ * *»”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to abstain from any willful, wanton or reckless conduct that [is] likely to injure or expose [the trespasser] to hidden peril.”
    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.