Rosecrants v. Shoemaker’s Empirical Analysis
1886
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently March 1989
12 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.
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the jury find that, for her husband’s use, as a beverage, the plaintiff was in the habit of purchasing of defendants intoxicating liquors by the bottle, they may consider that as evidence for the purpose of determining whether she authorized him to sell her husband liquor or not.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““If the jury find that defendants were authorized by' plaintiff to furnish her husband liquors, she cannot recover damages for injuries sustained by reason of defendants having furnished her husband liquor, unless he was intoxicated when such liquors were furnished.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Morton v. Roth““ If the mother sued for all the family, she could recover full compensation for their loss.””
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.