Rose v. Melody Lane’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 157 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions — most recently March 2022 · most notably 2 Cal. 3d 1 - Helfend v. Southern California Rapid Transit District (1970), 45 Cal. 2d 811 - Seneris v. Haas (1955)
3 federal appellate · 157 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. · 20 Cal. 2d 457 - Blank v. Coffin · Gordon v. Aztec Brewing Co. · Leet v. Union Pacific Railroad · 34 Cal. 2d 226 - Blumberg v. M. & T. Incorporated
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur concerns a type of circumstantial evidence upon which plaintiff may rely to discharge his burden of proving defendant's negligence.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the only reasonable conclusion is that the jurors compromised the issue of liability, and a new trial limited to the damage issue is improper.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendant and its agents were in exclusive control of the stool up to the time plaintiff sat upon it. It is true that in one sense plaintiff was in control of the stool while he was using it... . Such a view is artificial and ignores the purpose of the requirement that Defendant have exclusive control... . Here it was the condition of the stool, not the use made of it, that was responsible for the fall. Plaintiff had done no more than sit upon it when it gave way, and there is no suggestion that his conduct was improper. So far as construction, inspection, or maintenance of the stool were concerned, defendant had exclusive control.”
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.