Smith v. United Properties, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
69 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably 57 Ohio App. 3d 49 - Parsons v. Lawson Co. (1989), Jeswald v. Hutt (1968)
69 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 143 Ohio St. 426 - Taylor v. City of Cincinnati · S. S. Kresge Co. v. Fader · 128 Ohio St. 626 - J.C. Penny Co. v. Robinson · 153 Ohio St. 381 - Boles v. Montgomery Ward & Co. · Englehardt v. Philipps
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In order to recover from the occupier of premises for personal injuries sustained in a fall claimed to have been caused by the condition of those premises, a business invitee must allege and prove that the fall was proximately caused by some unreasonably dangerous condition of the premises.” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 316 , 31 O.O. 2d at 576, 209 N.E. 2d at 146 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The question as to whether the condition of premises complained of is an unreasonably dangerous condition is usually a question of fact for determination by the jury or other trier of the facts. However, where reasonable minds cannot determine that such condition was unreasonably dangerous, the trial court should not permit a jury to determine that it was. * * *” (Emphasis added.) Id. at 317 , 31 O.O. 2d at 577, 209 N.E. 2d at 147 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent““A variation of from one-half to three-fourths of an inch in the heights of adjacent sections of a sidewalk is a slight defect commonly found in sidewalks, and the municipality in which such sidewalk is located is not guilty of a violation of the duties imposed upon it by Section 3714, General Code, by reason of the existence of such defect.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.