Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 482 NW2D 437 - Welte v. Bello

Welte v. Bello’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently January 2017

6 state decisions

80199220002010decided

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 51 Cal. 2d 832 - Wolfsmith v. Marsh · 62 Wash. 2d 351 - Horner v. NORTHERN PAC. ETC. HOSP., INC. · Perin v. Hayne · Wiles v. Myerly · Oswald v. LeGrand

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

  1. “If there is sufficient competent evidence of the existence of the foundation of facts to generate an inference of negligence under [the] res ipsa loquitur doctrine, then summary judgment is not appropriate and the issue of general negligence should be submitted to the jury. If expert testimony is required to establish general negligence or the foundational facts and expert testimony is unavailable, then summary judgment is appropriate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Res ipsa loquitur applies when (1) the injury is caused by an instrumentality under the exclusive control of the defendant, and (2) the occurrence is such as in the ordinary course of things would not happen if reasonable care had been used. If there is substantial evidence to support both elements, the happening of the injury permits — but does not compel— an inference that the defendant was negligent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a party claiming negligence must identify specifically the acts or omissions constituting negligence. The purpose of requiring specification of negligence is to limit the determination of the factual questions arising in a negligence claim to only those acts or omissions upon which a particular claim is in fact based ... The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is an exception to the general rule.”
    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.