Knight v. Otis Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis
596 F.2d 84 · 1979
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 10 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (1994), Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc. (1990)
48 federal appellate · 10 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Filmon v. Florida · Kuisis v. Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton Corp. · Evans v. Otis Elevator Co. · 214 Pa. Super. 384 - MacDougall v. Ford Motor Co. · Universal Athletic Sales Co. v. American Gym, Recreational & Athletic Equipment Corp.
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rockwood Insurance Company v. Clark Equipment Co., Inc., C.L. Smith D/B/A Smith Equipment Company and Donald J. Smith D/B/A Smith Equipment Company, Rockwood Insurance Company v. Clark Equipment Co., Inc., C.L. Smith D/B/A Smith Equipment Company and Donald J. Smith D/B/A Smith Equipment Co. · Rockwood Insurance v. Clark Equipment Co.“is whether it is permissible to conclude, after excluding the conduct of the plaintiff and of third persons, that the [event causing the accident] does not usually occur unless the defendant has been negligent. We think the determination of whether the inference was to be drawn was for the jury. There was no evidence that the plaintiff contributed in any way to the accident. Although conflicting, we think the evidence sufficiently eliminated the conduct of third parties so as to require resolution by the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen, after an event, measures are taken which, if taken previously, would have made the event less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove negligence or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.”
2 later decisions 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.