Bylling v. Edwards’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 24 Cal. 2d 133 - Oettinger v. Stewart · 34 Cal. 2d 226 - Blumberg v. M. & T. Incorporated · 37 Cal. 2d 159 - Popejoy v. Hannon · Palmquist v. Mercer · 27 Cal. 2d 802 - Edwards v. Hollywood Canteen
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule defining the duty owed a licensee by owner of premises is found in Oettinger v. Stewart, 24 Cal.2d 133 [ 148 P.2d 19 , 156 A.L.R. 1221 ] to be ‘that in cases involving injury resulting from active conduct, as distinguished from the condition of the premises, the landowner or possessor may be liable for failure to exercise ordinary care toward a licensee whose presence on the land is known or should reasonably be known to the owner or possessor’ (p. 138). Thus, where no active negligence or ‘wilful and wanton injury’ [citations] is involved, the owner is not liable for injuries resulting from a condition of the premises other than one amounting to a trap [citation] ; and a licensee must take the premises as he finds them in so far as any alleged defective condition thereof is concerned. [Citations.]””
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.