Washington v. T. Smith & Son’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently September 1991 · most notably Canter v. Koehring Company (1973), Pilie v. National Food Stores of Louisiana, Inc. (1963)
1 federal appellate · 25 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 Lykiardopoulo v. New Orleans & C. R., Light & Power · Lambert Ex Rel. Lambert v. Jones · Mercer v. Tremont G. Ry. Co. · Ward v. Pullman Car Corp. · Haynes' Admrs. v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railroad
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he article means by things in one's custody such things over which that person maintains supervision and control ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the things which we have in our custody.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In some jurisdictions the agent is not accountable to third persons for nonfeasance, but is for misfeasance. However, the weight of modern authority is that no distinction is recognized, as far as the accountability of the agent is concerned, between acts of misfeasance and nonfeasance. See Haynes' Adm'rs v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T.P.R. Co., 145 Ky. 209 , 140 S.W. 176, 180 , wherein the court said: "`It is not at all material whether his wrongful or negligent act is committed in an affirmative or willful manner, or results from mere nonattention to a duty that he owes to third persons, and that it is entirely within his power to perform or omit to perform. There are innumerable situations and conditions presented in the everyday affairs of life that make it the duty of persons to so act as not to harm others, and when any person, whatever his position or relation in life may be, fails, from negligence, inattention, or willfulness, to perform the duty imposed he will be liable. Ellis v. Southern Railway Co., 72 S.C. 465 , 52 S.E. 228 , 2 L.R.A.,N.S., 378. * * *' "Some courts have held that an omission on the part of an agent might amount to a misfeasance. E. N. Emery & Co. v. American Refrigerator Transit Co., 194 Iowa 926 , 189 N.W. 824 ; Ryan v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, Mo.App., 144 S.W.2d 170 ; Lambert v. Jones, 339 Mo. 677 , 98 S.W.2d 752 ; Franklin v. May Department Stores Co., D.C., 25 F.Supp. 735 . "A note set forth in Ward v. Pullman [Car Corporation], 131 Ky. 142 ,”
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.