Bennett v. Railroad Co.’s Empirical Analysis
102 U.S. 577 · 1880
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 4 district · 262 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 379 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2006 · most notably Union Pac Ry Co v. McDonald (1894), Gleeson v. Virginia Midland Railroad (1891)
81 federal appellate · 4 district · 262 state decisions — followed in 37 states
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 Railroad Company v. Hanning · Carleton v. Franconia Iron & Steel 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 379 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The principle appears to be that invitation is inferred where there is a common interest or mutual advantage, while a license is inferred where the object is the mere pleasure or benefit of the person using it.””
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That the owner or occupant of land, who, by invitation, expressed or im- ' plied, induces or leads others to come upon his premises, for any lawful purpose, is liable in damages to such persons, they using due care, for injuries-occasioned by the unsafe condition of the land or its approaches, if such condition was known to him, and not to them, and was negligently suffered to exist, without timely notice to the public, or to those who were likely to act upon such invitation.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When one expressly or by implication invites others to come upon his premises, whether for business or for any other purpose, it is his duty to be reasonably sure that he is not inviting them into danger, and to that end he must exercise ordinary care and prudence to render the premises reasonably safe for the visit.”
5 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.