Cubbage v. Leep’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently June 2011
15 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.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"A tavern keeper does not hold himself out to the public as the protector of those who may be patrons of his place of business. * * * The owner of a place like Cubs Inn owes to his guests or patrons the duty to use ordinary care and diligence to protect them while lawfully on the premises. In the instant case Leep had a right to rely on the implied promise of the proprietor that he would be protected from injury while lawfully on the premises insofar as the Cubbages could protect him by the exercise of reasonable care and diligence. Reasonable care and diligence is measured by what a person of ordinary prudence would or would not do under the same or similar circumstances." (Emphasis supplied)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Pine v. Vigil
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.