Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 Md. 599 - Eyerly v. Baker

Eyerly v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
5
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 6 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably Scott v. Watson (1976), People's Drug Stores, Inc. v. Windham (1940)

7 federal appellate · 6 district · 35 state decisions

130193519401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Dickey v. Hochschild, Kohn & Co. · Morier v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Co. · Grzboski v. Bernheimer-Leader Stores · Isaac Benesch & Sons, Inc. v. Ferkler · President of Baltimore & Yorktown Turnpike Road v. Leonhardt

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

  1. ““So where a storekeeper invites the public to come upon his premises to buy his wares, he is held to a positive affirmative duty to protect them, not only against dangers which may arise from some defect or unsafe condition of the physical property upon which they are invited to enter, but against dangers which may be caused by negligent acts of his employees, or even of customers, where, as a reasonably prudent person, he should have anticipated the possible occurrence and the probable results of such acts.” (Emphasis supplied.) 3”
    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.