Lesick v. Proctor.’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 1958
18 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 Fitzpatrick v. Penfield · Zahniser v. Pennsylvania Torpedo Co. · Murray v. Frick · Dougherty v. Philadelphia Rapid Transit Co. · Dei v. Stratigos
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In addition, there was proof that, where the operation here in question is properly performed no harm results to the customer. It must be kept in mind that the defendant had control of the entire process and the instrumentalities employed therein. Under such circumstances very slight proof of defendant’s negligence is sufficient to take the case to the jury. ‘When the operation that causes the injury is shown to be under the management of the owner and the accident is such as in the ordinary course of things does not happen if those who have it in charge use proper care, it requires but slight evidence of defective operation to fasten responsibility on the defendant.’ Dei v. Stratigos, 287 Pa. 475, 477 [ 135 A. 111, 112 ] Fitzsimmons v. P. R. T. Co., 56 Pa. Superior Ct. 365 . ””
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.