Turner v. Willis’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently July 2013 · most notably State v. Arceo (1996), State v. Pinero (1989)
4 federal appellate · 99 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 Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co. · Eugene A. Wahl and Vibra Screw Feeders, Inc., and Cross-Appellees v. Carrier Manufacturing Co., Inc., and Cross-Appellant · L. G. Semke, D/B/A Semke Auto Mart v. Enid Automobile Dealers Association · The Industrial Development Board of the Town of Section, Alabama v. Fuqua Industries, Inc., the Industrial Development Board of the City of Fort Payne, Alabama v. Fuqua Industries, Inc. · Harkins v. Ikeda
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he doctrine of res ipsa loquitur provides that “whenever a thing that produced an injury is shown to have been under the control and management of the defendant and the occurrence is such as in the ordinary course of events does not happen if due care has been exercised, the fact of the injury itself will be deemed to afford sufficient evidence to support a recovery in the absence of any explanation by the defendant tending to show that the injury was not due to his want of care.” ... Under the res ipsa loquitur theory, then, “[t]he fact of the casualty and the attendant circumstances may themselves furnish all the proof of negligence that the injured person is able to offer or that it is necessary to offer” “without further proof ... of the defendant’s duty and of his negligence to perform it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“no party may assign as error the giving or refusal to give, or the modification of, an instruction ... unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On the issue of negligence, one of the questions for you to decide in this case is whether the accident occurred under the following conditions: 1. That it is the kind of accident which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of someone’s negligence; 2. That is [sic] was caused by an instrumentality in [the] exclusive control of the Defendant; 3. That the accident was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the Plaintiff.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.