Ciesielski v. Waterman’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently January 1990
2 federal appellate · 8 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 Jesionowski v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Tapia v. Panhandle Steel Erectors Company · Reed v. Styron · Chevron Oil Co. v. Sutton Ex Rel. Sutton · Renfro v. JD Coggins Company
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order for the jury to find the defendant negligent under this doctrine [res ipsa loquitur], the plaintiff has the burden of proving each of the following propositions: “1. That the injury to plaintiff was proximately caused by a crated motor which was under the exclusive control and management of the defendant. “2. That the event causing the injury to the plaintiff was of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, on the part of the person in control of the instrumentality.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The factual basis necessary as a premise for application of res ipsa lo-quitur requires proof that (1) plaintiff’s injury was proximately caused by an agent or instrumentality under the exclusive control of the defendant; and (2) the incident causing the injury is of the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence by the person having control of the instrumentality. ’ ’”
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.