Crawford v. Soennichsen’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 50 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Cereck v. Albertson's Inc. (1981), Debie v. Cochran Pharmacy-Berwick, Inc. (1967)
2 federal appellate · 50 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 Woods v. Naumkeag Steam Cotton Co. · Purcell v. English · Morris v. Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. · Taylor v. J. M. McDonald Co. · Kohl v. Unkel
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`[T]he general rule seems clearly to be that a store owner cannot be charged with negligence by reason of natural accumulation of ice and snow where the condition is as well known to the plaintiff as the defendant.'"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““There is no liability on the part of an inviter owner to protect a customer against hazards which are known to the customer and are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and be able to protect himself. Generally, the liability of an owner or occupant of the premises is predicated on proof of his superior knowledge, actual or constructive, of dangers to which invitee is subjected and of which invitee is unaware. 38 Am. Jur. Neg. Sec. 97, p. 757 and cases cited.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While the owner of premises owes the duty to an invitee to exercise ordinary care to have the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use in a manner consonant with the purposes of the invitation, generally, there is no duty on the part of an inviter owner to protect an invitee against hazards which are known to the invitee or are so apparent that he may reasonably be expected to discover them and protect himself.”
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.