148 Ind. App. 131 - Keane v. Schroeder’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2006
5 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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 145 Ind. App. 542 - Doe v. Barnett · Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Means · 144 Ind. App. 471 - Wozniczka v. McKEAN · 122 Ind. App. 597 - Phares v. Carr · Fort Wayne & Northern Indiana Traction Co. v. Stark
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The probable presence of children on property where a dangerous activity is being carried on, imposes a duty of ordinary care on the owner of such property to anticipate their presence by keeping a lookout for them, and such duty applies not only with respect to children under seven years of age, but may apply to older children whose presence the owner has reason to expect ... If the probable presence of children on the premises raises a duty to them of ordinary care, stich duty may be violated before the children arrive on the premises, by leaving things undone which should have been done in anticipation of their coming, but the duty of care arising from the probable presence of children on the premises, is relative rather than absolute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The owner of the premises owes the adult licensee no duty of active vigilance to discover his presence or his surroundings while on his premises by permission only, because such adult is presumed to go there with the understanding that he will take the premises as they are, with all the uses to which the owner may subject them while there, and that he will look after his own safety and welfare, and that he has discretion and judgment to do so. In other words, the owner of the premises does not know and has no reason to anticipate that such adult licensee will place himself in a situation of peril. To indulge such an assumption when a child, a licensee of immature years, judgment and discretion, is involved would be against our common understanding and reason and lacking in every element of humanity and justice." 59 Ind. App. at 405-6 ; 104 N.E. at 792-3 .”
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.