Tecza v. Sulzberger & Sons Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1914
Citation profile
21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently October 1994
21 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 King v. King · Parkinson Sugar Co. v. Riley · Madison v. Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. · Kamera v. Missouri Boiler Works · Plummer v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[W]e think the defense of assumed risk was not conclusively established. In order that a recovery shall be defeated upon that ground the plaintiff must not only have known of the existing conditions—he must also have realized and appreciated the danger that resulted from them. (26 Cyc. 1199.) This is not necessarily established by the fact that he made complaint; in doing so he may have had in mind merely the inconvenience that resulted from the want of additional lights. The matter of making the place safe to work in was not his problem. He was not required to take notice of any but the most obvious dangers. But much more than this was required of the employing company. . . .” (pp. 100, 101.)”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.