Olson v. Molzen’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 41 Cal. 4th 747 - City of Santa Barbara v. Superior Court (2007), 95 Ill. 2d 68 - McClure Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp. (1983)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 33 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Roe v. Wade · 60 Cal. 2d 92 - Tunkl v. Regents of University of California · Moss v. Fortune · Empress Health and Beauty Spa, Inc. v. Turner · 51 Tenn. App. 576 - Trailmobile, Inc. v. Chazen
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) It concerns a business of a type generally thought suitable for public regulation. (b) The party seeking exculpation is engaged in performing a service of great importance to the public, which is often a matter of practical necessity for some members of the public. (e) The party holds himself out as willing to perform this service for any member of the public who seeks it, or at least for any member coming within certain established standards. (d) As a result of the essential nature of the service, in the economic setting of the transaction, the party invoking exculpation possesses a decisive advantage of bargaining strength against any member of the public who seeks his services. (e) In exercising a superior bargaining power the party confronts the public with a standardized adhesion contract of exculpation, and makes no provision whereby a purchaser may pay additional reasonable fees and obtain protection against negligence. (f) Finally, as a result of the transaction, the person or property of the purchaser is placed under the control of the seller, subject to the risk of carelessness by the seller or his agents.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage“professional person operating in an area of public interest and pursuing a profession subject to licensure by the state.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is well settled in this State that parties may contract that one shall not be hable for his negligence to another but that such other shall assume the risk incident to such negligence.... Further, it is not necessary that the word ‘negligence’ appear in the exculpatory clause and the public policy of Tennessee favors freedom to contract against liability for negligence.”
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.