Gulf Refining Co. v. Beane’s Empirical Analysis
1939
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1972
3 federal appellate · 14 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 Dobbins v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. · Halbert v. Terrell · Kruse v. Houston & T. C. R. Co. · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Snow's Administrator · Douglas v. Bergland
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The decision in the case of Kalium v. Wheeler, supra, is predicated squarely upon the proposition that the injured party in that instance was upon the premises of the defendant ‘by invitation or inducement express or implied.’ In the present case we do not think plaintiff can be regarded as an invitee, as that term is usually defined. We think he was, at the most, only a licensee on the property of defendant at the time he was injured; and the general rule is that defendant did not owe him the duty of placing a light at the hole at the time in question. Galveston, H. & S. A. Ry. Co. v. Matzdorf, 102 Tex. 42 , 112 S.W. 1036 , 20 L.R.A..N.S., 883, 132 Am.St.Rep. 849 ; Dobbins v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 91 Tex. 60 , 41 S.W. 62 , 38 L.R.A. 573 , 66 Am.St.Rep. 856 ; Street Realty Co. v. Forrister, Tex.Civ.App., 22 S.W. 2d 746 ; McGinty v. Texas P. & L. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W.2d 354 , writ refused; Mendoza v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 70 S.W.2d 261 ; Kruse v. Houston & T. C. Ry. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W. 623 . “Counsel for plaintiff apparently recognize this general rule, and seek to bring this case within an exception to same. There is such exception, and we think the circumstances in this case raised an issue of fact as to its application. This exception has been tersely stated by the annotator in the annotation following the case of Douglas v. Bergland, 216 Mich. 380 , 185 N.W. 819 , 20 A.L.R. [197] 202. The rule as stated is as follows: ‘The general rule is tha”
1 later decision 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.