Arthur v. Standard Engineering Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions

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

1. ““The appellant says if any doubt existed whether he was a licensee or an invitee the question should have been submitted to the jury, as we held with respect to the circumstances shown in Young Men’s Shop v. Odend’hal, 1941, 73 App.D.C. 354 , 121 F.2d 857 . Unquestionably so, when the status depends upon issues of fact created by a contrariety of evidence.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Price ex rel. Price v. Thornton's Fourth Street, Inc. · Jack Jeffries v. Potomac Development Corporation v. Erwin F. Simon & Associates and Thomas L. Watson, Third-Party

2. ““Negligence is gauged by the ability to anticipate. The Angus Company apparently knew that its men were not the only ones at work upon the building. As the iron work went up, the stone work soon followed. Both classes of employees were working together. When the Angus Company placed boards over the iron beams forming a scaffold or flooring for its derricks, could it reasonably anticipate that other workmen on the structure would walk over the flooring ? On the evidence this was a question for the jury. * * * Under these circumstances and conditions, if reasonable care would have anticipated such use, then it was the duty of the defendant to erect its platform or flooring with due regard of the user by others; that is, it was under the duty to use reasonable care to construct it safely for those whom it had reason to anticipate would naturally and customarily use it in the course of the work.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Perkins v. Henry J. Kaiser Construction Co.

3. ““ ‘The doctrine appears to be universal that a licensor owes no duty to a licensee to provide safe places or premises for the occupancy or use of his li-' censee, save and except to abstain from doing any intentional, wilful (and in some jurisdictions gross recldess) act endangering the safety of the licensee.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wentz v. Grimshaw