Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 385 P2D 283 - Harris v. Deveau

Harris v. Deveau’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
4
states following
March 1978
most recently cited

8 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 144 Ohio St. 275 - Agricultural Ins. v. Constantine · 15 N.J. Super. 349 - HOPPER'S, INC. v. Red Bank Airport, Inc. · National Fire Ins. Co. v. Mogan · Nelson v. Nelson

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

  1. “is in a better position to explain the origin of the fire or the circumstances of the theft or other cause which would determine whether the loss or damage was due to negligence?”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The defendant next contends that it was error for the trial court to award damages to the plaintiff for injury to the borrowed radar set since the issue of negligence was neither pleaded nor tried below. The defendant acknowledges the provisions of Civ.R. 15(b) that, when issues not raised in the pleadings .are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings and that failure to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence does not affect the result of the trial of such issues. Furthermore, he admits that the radar equipment was damaged while in his possession by salt water pouring through the pilothouse window which was broken out by heavy seas. Nevertheless, he insists that the issue of negligence on his part was never raised in the court below. There is no doubt in our minds that both- parties recognized the negligence issue involved in this case and that they treated it as an issue to' be determined in the trial. At no time did the defendant object to testimony concerning the damage to the borrowed indicator and the demand made by the plaintiff upon the defendant that he make good the damages. In fact, the defendant himself disclaimed any fault on his part by asserting that the borrowed indicator was damaged through an act of God. We find that the negligence issue, though not pleaded, was tried by implied consent of the parties, and, therefore, the court did not err in treating it as an”
    1 later decision 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.