Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 WASH 407 - Patrick v. Smith

Patrick v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1913

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
11
states following
August 1991
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently August 1991 · most notably Green v. Ensign-Bickford Co. (1991), Great Northern Railway Co. v. State (1918)

2 federal appellate · 41 state decisions — followed in 11 states

120191319201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Bassett v. Salisbury Manufacturing Co. · Fitz Simons & Connell Co. v. Braun & Fitts · Miller v. Bay Cities Water Co. · Colton v. Onderdonk · Meeker v. City of East Orange

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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Two mining engineers, who testified that they had had experience and observation in the use of explosives in large quantities, in answer to a hypothetical question which assumed facts which the evidence tended to establish, were permitted to express an opinion that the explosion caused the loss of the water. It is argued that it was not competent for them to express an opinion upon the very issue the jury was required to decide. The testimony was competent.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It seems illogical to say that if one puts off a blast of powder, a substance inherently dangerous, on his own premises, which causes a stone to be thrown through his neighbor’s window, he is liable without regard to the degree of care used; but if it destroys his neighbor’s house, but casts no physical substance upon the premises, he is immune from liability unless it can be shown that reasonable care was not exercised.””
    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.