Tanner v. Harper’s Empirical Analysis
1904
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 1935
14 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 Grand Trunk Ry Co of Canada v. Cummings · Colorado Mortgage & Investment Co. v. Rees · Cone v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad · Grant v. Varney · Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Sipes
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There was no proof that plaintiff knew of the incline in the track. He had worked but a few days after it was connected with the doors. It was no part of his duty to operate the truck. His work was confined to the bottom of the shaft. The only question' was, whether or not, by the exercise of ordinary care, he should have observed the defect in the track? The incline was not so marked that it could readily be detected by observation alone. So that, in the circumstances of this case, the question of his alleged contributory negligence was within the province of the jury to- determine.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rice v. Van Why
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.