Pierce v. Jilka’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions

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

1. ““It is well settled in this state, and generally elsewhere, that an abutting property owner is not liable for personal injuries sustained by pedestrians injured by stumbling or falling over defects in the sidewalk unless the defect was created by such owner and is such a defect as amounts to a nuisance. [Citations omitted.]””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 5 Kan. App. 2d 36 - Wilson v. Goodland State Bank · Harris v. McConnell

2. ““It is the theory of appellant that this statute not only imposes a duty upon the property owner to pay for repairs, but also creates a duty in favor of travelers on the sidewalk, and makes the property owner liable to such travelers for injuries received because of the defective condition of the sidewalk. This interpretation of the statute is not sound. The primary duty to keep sidewalks in repair is on the city. The statute above quoted merely provides a statutory method by which the city may collect the cost of repairs from the property owner. The statute creates a duty on the part of the property owner to keep the sidewalks in repair — but that duty is owed to the city, not to the traveler on the sidewalk. The extent of the liability created is to pay for the repairs, not to pay damages to an individual, nor to reimburse the city if it is compelled to pay such damages. “Statutes similar to the one here involved have been passed by many states. In interpreting such statutes, the overwhelming weight of authority is to the effect that a statute which requires abutting owners to maintain and repair sidewalks adjoining their premises, such work to be done by the municipality at the expense of the abutting owners in case of their failure to construct or repair, does not impose liability upon such owners, either to travelers or to the city, for injuries incurred by reason of the defective sidewalk.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Major v. Fraser

3. ““Sometimes an imperfection in a walk may be of such a character that the court can say, as a matter of law, that it does not constitute an actionable defect, (citing case.) On the other extreme, there are those conditions which the courts would say, or the city would concede, that the condition of the street or walk is dangerous, (citing cases.) In between these extremes there are conditions where the question whether the imperfection in the street constitutes an actionable defect is one for the determination of the jury and the trial court, (citing cases.)” (p. 481.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Roach v. Henry C. Beck Co.