Todd v. Mass Transit Administration’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
4 district · 92 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Barbre v. Pope (2007), Remsburg v. Montgomery (2003)
4 district · 92 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 King v. Bankerd · Beatty v. Trailmaster Products, Inc. · Okwa v. Harper · Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County · Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Lane
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) [a] common carrier is under a duty to its passengers to take reasonable action (a) to protect them against unreasonable risk of physical harm____ (2) An innkeeper is under a similar duty to his guests. (3) A possessor of land who holds it open to the public is under a similar duty to members of the public who enter in response to his invitation. (4) One who is required by law to take or who voluntarily takes the custody of another under circumstance such as to deprive the other of his normal opportunities for protection is under a similar duty to the other.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) that the defendant was under a duty to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) that the defendant breached that duty, (3) that the plaintiff suffered actual loss or injury, and (4) that the loss or injury proximately resulted from the defendant’s breach of the duty.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In reviewing the grant of summary judgment, this Court must consider the facts reflected in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-moving parties, the plaintiffs. Even if it appears that the relevant facts are undisputed, `if those facts are susceptible to inferences supporting the position of the party opposing summary judgment, then a grant of summary judgment is improper.'”
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.