Sidle v. Humphrey’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 536 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 553 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Armstrong v. Best Buy Co. (2003), Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc. (1985)
4 federal appellate · 536 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 Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc. · 146 Ohio St. 676 - Oswald v. Jeraj · 76 Ohio App. 83 - Turoff v. Richman · 94 Ohio App. 320 - Wise v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. · 140 Ohio St. 150 - McCave v. City of Canton
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 553 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An occupier of premises is under no duty to protect a business invitee against dangers which are known to such invitee or are so obvious and apparent to such invitee that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself against them.”
29 later decisions quote this exact passage““1. When the owner or occupier of business premises is not shown to have notice, actual or implied, that the natural accumulation of snow and ice on his premises has created there a condition substantially more dangerous to his business invitees than they should have anticipated by reason of their knowledge of conditions prevailing generally in the area, there is a failure of proof of actionable negligence. “2. The mere fact standing alone that the owner or occupier has failed to remove natural accumulations of snow and ice from private walks on his business premises for an unreasonable time does not give rise to an action by a business invitee who claims damages for injuries occasioned by a fall thereon.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage““The knowledge of the condition removes the sting of unreasonableness from any danger that lies in it, and obviousness may be relied on to supply knowledge. Hence the obvious character of the condition is incompatible with negligence in maintaining it. If plaintiff happens to be hurt by the condition, he is barred from recovery by lack of defendant’s negligence towards him, no matter how careful plaintiff himself may have been.””
4 later decisions 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.