Curtis v. Lein’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 112 Wash. 2d 216 - Young v. Key Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · HERTOG, EX REL., SAH v. City of Seattle · 97 Wash. 2d 929 - Bernethy v. Walt Failor's, Inc. · 124 Wash. 2d 121 - Tincani v. Inland Empire Zoological Society · State ex rel. Davis-Smith Co. v. Clausen
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`(1) When the act causing the injury is so palpably negligent that it may be inferred as a matter of law, i.e., leaving foreign objects, sponges, scissors, etc., in the body, or amputation of a wrong member; (2) when the general experience and observation of mankind teaches that the result would not be expected without negligence; and (3) when proof by experts in an esoteric field creates an inference that negligence caused the injuries.'"”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Lein“does not follow that dangerous docks ordinarily exhibit discoverable defects,”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Lein“res ipsa loquitur applies to explain why a wooden structure would give way.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Curtis v. Lein
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.