695 So. 2d 51 - Sears v. Waste Processing Equipment’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 335 So. 2d 134 - Atkins v. American Motors Corp. · 528 So. 2d 866 - Harris v. Harris · 581 So. 2d 859 - McDonald v. Servpro · 678 So. 2d 797 - Hinkle v. BURGREEN CONTRACTING CO., INC. · 652 So. 2d 211 - Hicks v. Commercial Union Ins. Co.
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`In order to establish assumption of the risk as a matter of law, the evidence must show that the plaintiff discovered the alleged defect, was aware of the danger, proceeded unreasonably to use the product, and was injured.' Sears v. Waste Processing Equip., Inc., 695 So.2d 51, 53 (Ala.Civ.App.1997) (emphasis added). `”
2 later decisions 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.