Martinez v. Rodriquez’s Empirical Analysis
394 F.2d 156 · 1968
Citation profile
228 federal appellate · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 287 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably 189 W. Va. 404 - Kincaid v. Mangum (1993), U.S. Anchor Mfg., Inc. v. Rule Industries, Inc. (1993)
228 federal appellate · 10 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 Clay v. Sun Ins. Office Ltd. · American Tobacco Co. v. Green · Clay v. Sun Insurance Office, Ltd. · Edwin Green, Jr., as Administrator of the Estate of Edwin Green, Deceased, and Mary Green v. American Tobacco Company
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 287 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he particular phrasing used in the certified question is not to restrict the Supreme Court’s consideration of the problems involved and the issues as the Supreme Court perceives them to be in its analysis of the record certified in this case. This latitude extends to the Supreme Court’s restatement of the issue or issues and the manner in which the answers are to be given, whether as a comprehensive whole or in subordinate or even contingent parts.”
44 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The case was tried before a jury, and the jury by special verdict, F.R.Civ.P. 49(a), found that defendants were negligent in their operation of the swimming pool and that Mrs. Martinez was negligent in her duty to supervise Jacqueline. Both of these findings are supported by the evidence and are binding under the Seventh Amendment. But plaintiff maintains that he is not completely barred by his wife's negligence since he neither (a) knew nor (b) should have known of his wife's conduct since he was out of the country at the time of the drowning. The Federal District Judge, citing Klepper v. Breslin, Fla., 1955, 83 So.2d 587 , as the controlling authority held, however, that the recovery under Florida Statute 768.03, F.S.A. was `indivisible' and that the negligence of the mother-wife would be imputed to plaintiff-father-husband, so the father was denied recovery. Plaintiff argues that the Klepper decision is not controlling as it held only that when the father knew or should have known of a mother's negligence in supervising a child would the recovery for his loss of services and his mental pain and suffering be barred completely. Defendants do not contend, nor is there any such jury finding, that the father was negligent in any way. As stated above we sustain the findings of negligence on the part of the mother and defendants. The only problem remaining is whether the father is barred by the mother's negligence. If so, the case ends. If not, it must be remanded for a determin”
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.