Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 Or. 429 - Ross v. Cuthbert

Ross v. Cuthbert’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
14
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Deems v. Western Maryland Railway Co. (1967), 247 So. 2d 40 - Gates v. Foley (1971)

2 federal appellate · 5 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 14 states

170196419701980199020002010decided

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.

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ * * * Evidently the courts view with disfavor a contention that a third party should pay all of the damages when the husband’s own negligence was responsible for some of them. Or, it may be that the operation of the doctrine of consortium is subject to criticism when it permits a family to team up against a third party and allow the wife to recover in her name even though her husband, who drove the car, cannot recover.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “`[S]ince the husband's action for loss of consortium is derived from the wife's action, a valid defense to her action will also bar his.' [Conversely, h]er right of action [for loss of consortium] is ... subject to any defenses available in a husband's action for redress of the same harm.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “This does not answer the criticism levied against the rule, and it does not discharge our responsibility as an appellate court to recognize only those principles of law that can be supported by sound reason.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.