Cooper v. Horn’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Hoar v. Great Eastern Resort Management, Inc. (1998), First Virginia Banks, Incorporated v. Bp Exploration & Oil, Incorporated Standard Oil Company Bp America, Incorporated (2000)
35 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 Fox v. Deese · Logan v. Montgomery Ward & Co. · Danville Community Hospital, Inc. v. Thompson · Parker v. Hartford Fire Insurance · Eaves v. City of Ottumwa
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] plaintiff must prove an invasion that interfered with the right of exclusive possession of the land and that was a direct result of some act committed by the defendant. Any physical entry upon the surface of the land constitutes such an invasion, whether the entry is a walking upon it, flooding it with water, casting objects upon it, or otherwise.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`was the sole proximate cause of the injury.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The restricted nature of the doctrine is implicit in a statement of its elements. For the doctrine to apply, the instrumentality causing the damage must be in the exclusive possession of or under the exclusive management of the defen dant, the accident must be of such nature and character as does not ordinarily occur if due care is used, and the evidence regarding the cause of the incident is accessible to the defendant and inaccessible to the injured party. In other words, the mere fact that an accident occurred does not warrant application of the doctrine. It may be utilized only when the circumstances of the incident, without further proof, are such that, in the ordinary course of events, the incident could not have happened except on the theory of negligence. In such case, the doctrine raises a presumption or permits an inference of negligence. It is not to be applied, however, when evidence is available. Moreover, the doctrine never applies in the case of an unexplained accident that may have been attributable to one of two causes, for one of which the defendant is not responsible.”
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.