Hall v. CORNETT’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
2 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 2019
2 district · 9 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 Stanton v. New York & Eastern Railway Co. · Rainier v. Masters · Brennan v. Berlin Iron Bridge 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`Some damages are always presumed to follow from the violation of any right or duty implied by law. * * *' Smith v. Pallay, 130 Ore. 282 , 279 P. 279, 281 . But this rule must be understood in connection with another. In a case of personal injury, caused by common-law negligence, such as is alleged here, an actor is liable only if he invades an interest which the law protects against unintended invasion. 65 C.J.S., Negligence, par. 1c, page 319; Restatement, Torts, par. 281; 38 Am. Jur., Negligence, 672, par. 27. Damage is the gravamen of such an action for negligence. Negligent contact with the person of another, causing no physical damage is not actionable. That is to say, no right of the plaintiff is invaded in such a case unless actual damage is done. Sullivan v. Old Colony Street Railway, 200 Mass. 303 , 86 N.E. 511 ; Muncie Pulp Co. v. Davis, 162 Ind. 558 , 70 N.E. 875 ; 1 Am. Jur., Actions, 424, par. 31; Christopher v. McGuire, 179 Ore. 116 , 169 P.2d 879 ; Schumann v. Bank of California, National Assn., 114 Ore. 336 , 233 P. 860 , 37 A.L.R. 1531 ; Chambers v. Everding & Farrell, 71 Ore. 521 , 136 P. 885 , 143 P. 616 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The award of nominal general damage and substantial special damage involved an inconsistency. ... [T]hey violated the instructions of the court. The first verdict was therefore not 'such as the court may receive.' We could not reinstate the so-called first verdict because it never became a verdict at all.”
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.