Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 F.2d 176 - Eastburn v. Levin

Eastburn v. Levin’s Empirical Analysis

113 F.2d 176 · 1940

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
4
states following
November 1993
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently November 1993

9 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions

70194019501960197019801990decided

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. Stout · Best v. District of Columbia · United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. Britt · Hamburg-American Line v. United States · Branan v. Wimsatt

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

  1. ““The underlying question is whether it is better to let occupants arrange their premises in total disregard of neighboring children, or to require them to take such precautions as a normal person would when their premises are attractive and insidiously dangerous to children too young to look out for themselves and when the intrusion of such children is likely. On the one side is the occupant’s interest, and the general interest, in the profitable use of land. On the other is the child’s interest, and the interest of his parents and of society, in life and limb and in compensation for their injury. Imposing responsibility is more apt to make occupants careful than denying responsibility is to make children careful; occupants may know little about law, but children know nothing about it, and children will play where they can.” 72 App.D.C. at 192 , 113 F.2d at 178 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The jury should have been permitted to decide whether the special circumstances on which the Court relied in the Best case — attraction, danger not apparent to children, and likelihood of visits of children — were present here, and if so, whether defendant took reasonable precautions for the protection of children.” 72 App.D.C. at 191 , 113 F.2d at 177 .”
    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.