Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 Okla. 24 - Ramage Mining Co. v. Thomas

Ramage Mining Co. v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1935

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2022 · most notably Guilfoyle Wild v. Missouri Kansas Texas Railroad Company (1987), Hampton by and Through Hampton v. Hammons (1987)

4 federal appellate · 23 state decisions

801935194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 City of Shawnee v. Cheek · Julian v. Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. · Jenkins v. Davis · Town of Depew v. Kilgore · Love Motor Co. v. Croskell

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. ““The only duty the owner of premises owes a trespasser is not to willfully or wantonly injure him; ordinarily no duty of anticipating his presence is imposed. In the case of a licensee the landowner must not wantonly and willfully injure him, and if the premises are inherently dangerous or if there is a dangerous instrumentality thereon, such as highly dangerous explosives, exposed electric wires and the like, it is usually willful or wanton negligence not to exercise ordinary care to prevent injury to a person who is actually known to be, or reasonably is expected to be, within the range of such danger. “The rule of attractive nuisance arises in a case where the premises are sufficiently attractive to allure children to the danger, and where the situation is such as to suggest to the landowner the probability of such allurement and an accident arising therefrom. “The doctrine may be invoked in a case where the child injured by reason of an attractive nuisance is an invitee, a licensee, or trespasser; a child under seven years of age, or in the absence of evidence of capacity, between seven and 14 years of age, being presumed to be incapable of guilt of more than technical trespass.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “person of ordinary sensibilities and prudence”
    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.