Ono v. Applegate’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 19 district · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably El Chico Corp. v. Poole (1987), Ontiveros v. Borak (1983)
2 federal appellate · 19 district · 99 state decisions — followed in 25 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 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · Rappaport v. Nichols · Elder v. Fisher · Fujioka Ex Rel. Fujioka v. Kam · Jardine v. Upper Darby Lodge No. 1973
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. A duty, or obligation, recognized by the law, requiring the actor to conform to a certain standard of conduct for the protection of others against unreasonable risks. 2. A failure on [the actor’s part] to conform to the standard required 3. A reasonable close causal connection between the conduct and the resulting injury ... 4. Actual loss or damage resulting to the interests of another ...”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“How Standard of Conduct is Determined. The standard of conduct of a reasonable man may be (a) established by a legislative enactment or administrative regulation which so provides, or (b) adopted by the court from a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation which does not so provide, or (c) established by judicial decision, or (d) applied to the facts of the case by the trial judge or the jury, if there is no such enactment, regulation, or decision.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[e]ven where a legislative enactment contains no express provision that its violation shall result in tort liability, and no implication to that effect, the court may, and in certain types of cases customarily will, adopt the requirements of the enactment as the standard of conduct necessary to avoid liability for negligence[.]"”
3 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.