Hart v. Ivey’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Stein v. Asheville City Board of Education (2006), 165 Ill. 2d 482 - Charles v. Seigfried (1995)
6 federal appellate · 72 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 Rappaport v. Nichols · Jolly v. Wright · Aldridge Ex Rel. Aldridge v. Hasty · Council v. Dickerson's, Inc. · Lutz Industries, Inc. v. Dixie Home Stores
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“failure to exercise that degree of care which a reasonable and prudent person would exercise under similar conditions. A defendant is liable for his negligence if the negligence is the proximate cause of injury to a person to whom the defendant is under a duty to use reasonable care.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“`[t]he law imposes upon every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm, and calls a violation of that duty negligence.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“[The defendants] argue that there are many implications from establishing such a claim and we should not do so. Our answer to this is that we are not recognizing a new claim. We are applying established negligence principles and under those principles the plaintiffs have stated claims.”
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.