Rouse v. Dunkley & Bennett, P.A.’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Pope v. ESA Services, Inc. (2005), Hauschildt v. Beckingham (2004)
8 federal appellate · 8 district · 14 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · State Ex Rel. Cooper v. French · Lewis v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States · Stuempges v. Parke, Davis & Co. · Christy v. Saliterman
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only evidence [the plaintiff] has provided is his own deposition testimony, during which he submitted a list of thirteen companies where he interviewed. [The plaintiff] remembered some details about the interviews, such as roughly where the companies’ offices were located and, in a -few cases, whether he interviewed with a man or a woman. However, he could not provide names of interviewers nor provide any documentary evidence of having filled out applications, sent resumes or received rejections.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“For negligence to be the proximate cause of an injury, it must appear that if the act is one which the party ought, in the exercise of ordinary care, to have anticipated was likely to result in injury to others, then he is liable for any injury proximately resulting from it, even though he could not have anticipated the particular injury which did happen.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Accordingly, we hold that in an action for defamation, the publication requirement may be satisfied where the plaintiff was compelled to publish a defamatory statement to a third person if it was foreseeable to the defendant that the plaintiff would be so compelled.”
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.