Hendrix v. Phillips Petroleum Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1969
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Henderson v. Hassur (1979), Brown v. Wichita State University (1975)
6 federal appellate · 12 district · 32 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 United States v. Ohio Power Co. · Moog Industries, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · 14 Ill. App. 2d 5 - Hulke v. International Manufacturing Co. · Greep v. Bruns · Peak Drilling Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The defendant Texaco had a duty to adequately instruct and train their salesmen as to their product, benzene, in order that their salesmen take appropriate action and give appropriate advice to the purchasers and users of benzene. The violation of such a duty is negligence. The defendant had a duty to exercise a high degree of care in selecting, training and advising its salesmen.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) The owner or occupier of property owes an “invitee” a duty to exercise ordinary care for his safety, but the owner or occupier of property owes to a “licensee” only the duty to avoid willfully, intentionally or recklessly injuring him. (2) An “invitee” is either a public invitee or a business visitor. (3) A public invitee is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land as a member of the public for a purpose for which the land is held open to the public. (4) A business visitor is a person who is invited to enter or remain on land for a purpose directly or indirectly connected with business dealings with the possessor of the land. (5) The fact that a person is invited to visit the premises of another does not make him a public invitee. The purpose of his visit determines his status. (6) The meaning of the word “invitee” is more limited than that of “invitation” in the popular sense, and not all of those who are invited to enter upon land are invitees. (7) A licensee is a person who is privileged to enter or remain upon premises by virtue of the possessor’s consent, whether given by invitation or permission.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * In this case, negligence means the lack of ordinary care under the existing circumstances. As applied to the defendant, it means the failure to do something that a reasonably careful gas distributor engaged in the same business would do or the doing of something by a gas distributor that a reasonably careful gas distributor engaged in the same business would not do. The degree of care must be equal to the foreseeable danger reasonably to be anticipated, measured by all the facts and circumstances. The failure to exercise such care on the part of defendant's employee Graham in making such an inspection would be negligence within the meaning of the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.