Pratt v. Daly’s Empirical Analysis
1940
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently January 2007 · most notably 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager (1971), Rappaport v. Nichols (1959)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 76 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton · Foot v. Card · Williams v. Williams · King v. Henkie · Humphrey v. Pope
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Every requested application of the principles of the common law to a new set of circumstances is originally without precedent, and some court must be the first one to make the proper application. In answer to the second question, ... [w]e are asked to declare what the common law is and always has been, and a declaration by us that it has always permitted such an action, even though none has ever actually been brought, is no more legislation than would be a declaration that it does not.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““While the mere sale of intoxicating liquor to a husband or wife, the consumption of which by the purchaser creates a situation which results in financial injury to the other spouse, does not give rise to an action for damages, such sale is actionable where, to the sellers knowledge, the purchasers will to refrain is so impaired that it is not possible for him to refrain from drinking the liquor when it is placed before him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ * * * Whenever a valid statute or regulation provides that a certain thing must or must not be done, if a failure to comply with such regulation is a proximate cause of injury to another, such failure is actionable negligence per se. * * *» (Additional emphasis ours) 55 Ariz. at 537 , 104 P.2d at 148 .”
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.