375 So. 2d 1041 - Smith v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2012
1 federal appellate · 2 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 113 N.J. Super. 416 - Swisscraft Novelty Co. v. Alad Realty Corp. · McDonald v. Wilmut Gas & Oil Co. · 45 Tenn. App. 193 - Gilson v. Gillia · Citizens' Bank v. Frazier · Grandberry v. Mortgage Bond & Trust 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[E]xculpatory clauses such as here under consideration are not violative of public policy in this state, and ... the clause is not an unreasonable exercise of lessors' right to contract a limitation on the extent of their damages. The exculpatory and indemnity provision of the lease was but a division of the risk involved, fully understandable and advisable when the landlord reserves no control over the type and value of the inventory of the tenant. Not only was this clause the lessors' contract, but it was also the contract of the lessees. ... . We also consider that there may have been other direct damages, such as diminution in rental value, but are of the view that the exculpatory clause of the contract was properly held a bar to [the lessee's] recovery of the damages prayed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(Lessee) took no steps to remedy the defective condition of the roof, other than by protests to appellees, and suffered her property and inventory to be exposed to the water from the roof____ (Lessee) could have sought specific performance of (Lessors’) contract. We also consider that there may have been other direct damages, such as diminution in rental value, but are of the view that the exculpatory clause of the contract was properly held a bar to appellant’s recovery of the damages prayed.”
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.