Elliott v. Field’s Empirical Analysis
1895
Citation profile
1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently March 1986
1 district · 7 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 Fillmore v. Wells · City of Peoria v. Simpson · Green v. Taney · Webb v. Smith
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This may be one of those cases where both the owner of the abutting lot and the city are under a common obligation to keep safe the sidewalk in front of such lot. If so, and if the plaintiff is injured, by tlieir failure In this respect, which failure would be a common neglect of a common duty, the plaintiff would have his election to sue the defendants jointly or severally. If is sufficient to say, however, that in. effect this complaint in general terms alleges that it was the duty of both the defendants to keep safe this place where the accident happened, which, it is alleged, they did not do, and their failure was the cause of the injury. The gist of the grievance was the common negligence of both defendants in not properly guarding the excavation. This being so, and the complaint also setting forth a stale of facts which shows that the city ought to have known of the defect in this street, and re paired the same, prior to the accident, the complaint is sufficient to support the verdict against both the defendants.””
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.