Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 Ariz. 220 - McFarlin v. Hall

McFarlin v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

1980

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
3
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

98 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Ontiveros v. Borak (1983), Donnelly Const. Co. v. Oberg/Hunt/Gilleland (1984)

98 state decisions

5401980199020002010decided

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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · E. L. Jones Construction Co. v. Noland · Tucker v. Collar · Carey v. New Yorker of Worcester, Inc. · Vigil v. Pine, Jr.

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

  1. “[I]s designed, in part at least, to protect the other from the hazard of being harmed by the intervening force, or by the effect of the intervening force operating on the condition created by the negligent conduct, then that hazard is within the duty, and the intervening force is not a superseding cause.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “It is sufficient if the jury could have found on the evidence that a reasonable person would have foreseen that the condition or presence of [the assailant] on the premises posed a threat of physical harm to the patrons or employees of the bar and would have taken action to prevent such harm.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[0]ne who operates a bar where the public is invited while not an insurer of the safety of his patrons, owes the duty to his patrons to exercise reasonable care and vigilance to protect them from reasonably foreseeable injury, mistreatment or annoyance at the hands of other patrons.”
    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.