Copeland v. Compton’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 2011
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 Martin v. City of Washington · Means v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · Schaffer v. Bess · Campbell v. Kelley · Bakelite Company v. Miller
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 any action for negligence, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to protect plaintiff from injury, failure of the defendant to perform that duty and, that plaintiff's injury was proximately caused by defendant's failure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. Marler“[d]enial of a motion for new trial is not an appealable order; but appeal must be taken from the judgment to which the motion was directed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Echessa v. Echessa“If the negligence causes no actual damages to plaintiff, defendant is entitled to a verdict.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thompson v. Marler
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.