Lewis v. Wolf’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2003 · most notably Ontiveros v. Borak (1983), Langle v. Kurkul (1986)
2 federal appellate · 36 state decisions — followed in 10 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · Rappaport v. Nichols · 16 Cal. 3d 313 - Bernhard v. Harrah's Club · Stone v. Arizona Highway Commission
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'Inherent in the common law is a dynamic principle which allows it to grow and to tailor itself to meet changing needs within the doctrine of stare decisis, which, if correctly understood, was not static and did not forever prevent the courts from reversing themselves or from supplying principles of common law to new situations as the need arose. If this were not so, we must suceumb to a rule that a judge should let others”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“The plaintiff will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the person in question was, at the time, obviously, actually and apparently intoxicated in order to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the bartender knew, or should have known, such fact. Furthermore, to be successful upon such a cause of action, the plaintiff would have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that serving the additional intoxicating liquor, after the subject person was already obviously, actually and apparently intoxicated, was a contributing proximate cause of the ensuing injuries. Such proof is not outside of the competence of our judicial system.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carver v. Schafer“It seems clear that the common law rule is an anachronism, unsuitable to our present society, and that its reasoning is repugnant to modern tort theories.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ontiveros v. Borak
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.