Springrose v. Willmore’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 161 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 193 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Rosas v. Buddies Food Store (1975), Anderson v. Ceccardi (1983)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 161 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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 Meistrich v. Casino Arena Attractions, Inc. · 15 Wis. 2d 374 - McConville v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance · Felgner v. Anderson · Peterson v. WT Rawleigh Company · Parker v. Redden
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 193 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Primary assumption of risk, express or implied, relates to the initial issue of whether a defendant was negligent at all — that is, whether the defendant had any duty to protect the plaintiff from a risk of harm. It is not, therefore, an affirmative defense.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“"... The doctrine of implied assumption of risk must, in our view, be recast as an aspect of contributory negligence, meaning that the plaintiff's assumption of risk must be not only voluntary but, under all the circumstances, unreasonable ... The practical and most important impact of this decision is to mandate that, like any other form of contributory negligence, assumption of risk must be apportioned under our comparative negligence statute..." 192 N.W.2d at 827 . [Citations omitted.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our retention of the terminology of implied assumption of risk, although only as an element of negligence, may be an unnecessary precaution in most situations. The only question for submission in the usual case, we think, will be whether the particular plaintiff was, under the circumstances, negligent in regard to his own safety, for under that general issue counsel may fully argue the issue in all its aspects.”
2 later decisions 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.