Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 770 SW2D 606 - Lorillard v. Davis

Lorillard v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1989

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
December 2014
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 2014

4 state decisions

201989199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas 193rd Judicial District Court)

Relationships

Relies on In Re King's Estate · Cain v. Bain · Renfro Drug Co. v. Lewis · Brower v. United States · Leyva v. Pacheco

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

  1. “SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 1 Do you find that there was a condition in the ladies bathroom, created by Excelo Building Maintenance, which created an unreasonable risk of harm to Martha Sanchez? Answer "Yes” or “No.” ANSWER: [No] ****** If you have answered Special Issue No. 1 “Yes,” and only in that event, then answer Special Issue No. 2, 3 and 4; otherwise, do not answer Special Issue No. 2, 3, and 4. SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 2 Whose negligence, if any, of the persons or corporations named below proximately caused the occurrence in question? Answer “Yes” or “No” for each of the following: a. Excelo Building Maintenance _ b. Martha Sanchez _ Questions three (comparative negligence) and four (damages) were predicated on “Yes” answers to questions one and two, and were not answered. Plaintiffs sole objection to these questions stated that question one was not an ultimate issue and that rule 277 mandates a general negligence charge. See note 3 infra. Plaintiff did not tender any additional jury questions for inclusion in the charge.”
    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.