Aravanis v. Eisenberg’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
4 district · 118 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 129 later decisions — most recently April 2011 · most notably 31 Cal. 3d 362 - Lipson v. Superior Court (1982), 20 Cal. 3d 199 - Walters v. Sloan (1977)
4 district · 118 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 20 Ill. 2d 406 - Dini v. Naiditch · Krauth v. Israel Geller and Buckingham Homes, Inc. · Smith v. Higinbothom · Wilhelm v. State of Maryland Traffic Safety Commission · Bethlehem-Sparrows Point Shipyard, Inc. v. Scherpenisse
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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a fire department is called to fight a blaze, the cause of the blaze is immaterial. It may be the result of actual negligence on the part of the property owner, such as the dropping of a lighted match, or of his negligence in the maintenance of his property, as in permitting a known defective condition of the wiring to remain uncorrected. In either case, if the fireman is injured by the flames or gases of the conflagration, apart from unusual factors operative after the fire has begun, he can not recover. Fighting the fire, however caused, is his occupation. Compensation for injuries sustained in the fulfilment of his duties, absent other circumstances, is the obligation of society.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]ecause of the nature of his duties, the fireman takes the property as he finds it, subject to the usual and ordinary hazards to which firemen are ordinarily éx-posed.... “The possessor of land must exercise reasonable care not to subject the fireman to unusual danger and to see that the fireman is aware of any such unusual danger of which the landowner has knowledge and the fireman could not reasonably be expected to discover in the discharge of his duties.” (Citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In this present case there is no allegation that the elevator shaft was opened in or near a way prepared and set apart as a passage way, and the case is not rested upon any such concealment or deceptive appearance, ‘something like fraud,’ put in the path of the plaintiff, as would render the danger a trap. We are to decide, now, only whether upon common law principles the owners or the tenant could be held liable to the injured firemen, or salvage corps man, for failing to exercise care to protect him from falling into an elevator shaft anywhere on the premises, while he is at work putting out a fire.””
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.