Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 OHIOST2D 42 - Howard v. Rogers

Howard v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

1969

Citation profile

78
cited by 78 later decisions
1
states following
September 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 73 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 78 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably Mason v. Roberts (1973), Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co. (1995)

1 federal appellate · 73 state decisions

320196919701980199020002010decided

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 141 Ohio St. 584 - Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co. · 153 Ohio St. 9 - Campbell v. Hudges Provision Co. · Oberlin v. Friedman · Holdshoe v. Whinery · 153 Ohio St. 435 - Kokinos v. Ohio Greyhound, Inc.

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

  1. “[w]here an occupier of premises for business purposes does not, and could not in the exercise of ordinary care, know of a danger 9 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO which causes injury to his business invitee, he is not liable therefore.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““An occupier of premises for business purposes may be subject to liability for harm caused to a business invitee by the conduct of third persons that endangers the safety of such invitee, just as such an occupier may be subject to liability for harm caused to such invitee by any dangerous condition of those premises.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Since the possessor is not an insurer of the visitor's safety, he is ordinarily under no duty to exercise any care until he knows or has reason to know that the acts of the third person are occurring, or are about to occur. He may, however, know or have reason to know, from past experience, that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons in general which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor, even though he has no reason to expect it on the part of any particular individual. ***”
    3 later decisions 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.