Mezes v. Mead’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 state decisions

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

1. “the jury to infer negligence based on the circumstances of the incident even though no direct evidence of negligence has been introduced. . . . The doctrine . . . applies when three conditions are satisfied: (1) [t]he situation, condition, or apparatus causing the injury must be such that in the ordinary course of events no injury would result unless from a careless construction, inspection or user[;] (2) [b]oth inspection and user must have been at the time of the injury in the control of the party charged with neglect[;] (3) [t]he injurious occurrence or condition must have happened irrespective of any voluntary action at the time by the party injured.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Doe v. Milford Hospital, No. Cv97-0057258s (Jul. 26, 2000)

2. “Whether res ipsa loquitur applies depends upon whether the defendant's negligence was the most plausible explanation for the plaintiff's injury; the doctrine does not apply if there are other reasonable explanations for the plaintiff's accidental injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Doe v. Milford Hospital, No. Cv97-0057258s (Jul. 26, 2000)

3. “[T]he trial court has wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and this discretion is not to be disturbed... unless [it] has been abused, or the error is clear and involves a misconception of the law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Loforese v. Hard Rock Blasting Co., No. Cv 97 161377 (Apr. 30, 1999)