Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 HAW 247 - Ciacci v. Woolley

Ciacci v. Woolley’s Empirical Analysis

1934

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 3 district · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably Turner v. Willis (1978), State v. Pinero (1993)

1 federal appellate · 3 district · 23 state decisions

120193419401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Best v. District of Columbia · Bright v. Barnett & Record Co. · 27 Cal. App. 105 - Van Horn v. Pacific Refining & Roofing Co. · Pettingill v. William Porter & Son, Inc. · 102 Cal. App. 656 - Wright v. Southern Counties Gas Co.

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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““We think this argument, unsustained as it is by any semblance of evidence or proof tending to show such interference with this pipe or cap, carries the possibilities in cases of this kind entirely too far. To give it application would be to practically eliminate the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur from the law, since it would be difficult to imagine a case where the appliance causing the accident would be so immured as to make it impossible for any person but its owner or operator to have access to it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Adopting the language of McCloskey v. Koplar (Mo.), 46 S. W. (2d) 557,560 , with respect to the doctrine invoked as above: “ *** the requirement that the instrumentality be under the management and control of the defendant does not mean, or is not limited to, actual physical control, but refers rather to the right of control at the time the negligence was committed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies 'whenever a thing that produced an injury is shown to have been under the control and management of the defendant and the occurrence is such as in the ordinary course of events does not happen if due care has been exercised....'”
    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.