Commonwealth v. Madison’s Empirical Analysis
1937
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1981
3 federal appellate · 8 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 United States V. Norwegian Barque Thekla · Pauley v. Steam Gauge & Lantern Co. · Luckenbach Co v. The Thekla · Yall v. Snow · Hays v. Ewing
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It will be observed that some of the cases referred to had under consideration the relationship of landlord and tenant; while in others the relationship of master and servant was involved; but the absence of a common-law duty of the landlord in the one case, and the master in the other, to provide such protecting facilities against danger of fire, was expressly declared, and the last-cited text states the broad principle that the owner of any character of building, regardless of any relationship that he might sustain to one injured by fire destroying it, was likewise immime at common law from liability because of failure to provide such precautionary measures agamst fire.” (Italics ours.) Continuing, we cited with approval “the case of Pennyroyal Company v. Jordan, 229 Ky. 693 , 17 S. W. (2d) 720, 721 , 66 A. L. R. 1390, wherein we declared the same principle to be the correct one under the common law, and in doing so we employed this language: ‘There is no common-law or statutory duty (in this state) resting upon the landlord to equip or maintain its building with auxiliary fire apparatus.’ The. opinion also reiterated another correct principle in holding that negligence can be established only upon the failure to perform a duty and in the absence of duty there can be no negligence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.