Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 49 MICH 164 - Samuelson v. Cleveland Iron Mining Co.

Samuelson v. Cleveland Iron Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1882

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
22
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 49 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Powers v. Harlow (1884), 46 Cal. App. 707 - Barton v. Studebaker Corp. of America (1920)

1 federal appellate · 49 state decisions — followed in 22 states

11018821890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Ford v. Fitchburg Railroad · Swords v. . Edgar · Coughtry v. . Globe Woolen Co. · Laning v. . N.Y.C.R.R. Co. · Water Company v. Ware

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

  1. ““As between landlord and tenant the party presumptively responsible for a nuisance upon the leased premises is the tenant. * * * Mere ownership of the mine can certainly impose no such duty (to guard against danger to the miners). The owner may rent a mine, resign all charge and control over it, and at the same time put off all responsibility for what may occur in it afterwards. If he transfers no nuisance with it, and provides for nothing by his lease which will expose others to danger, he will from that time have no more concern with the consequences to others than any third person. * * * Legal wrongs must spring from neglect of legal duties.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““That this duty of supervision and care at all times rested upon the mining company and was not devolved upon the contractors by the agreement made with them. This is the point on which the plaintiff chiefly relies.””
    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.