Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 205 Kan. 339 - Weil v. Smith

Weil v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1970

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
July 2006
most recently cited

2 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2006

2 district · 18 state decisions

1001970198019902000decided

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 Mozert v. Noeding · Little v. Butner · Graham v. Loper Electric Co. · 3 Ariz. App. 424 - Patania v. Silverstone · Kemp v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In many instances, if not, indeed, in most, it can be said that status of a visitor may be determined as a matter of law. For example, we have not hesitated to say that one who enters a retail store for the purpose of making a purchase therein is a business invitee. (Little v. Butner, 186 Kan. 75 , 348 P.2d 1022 ; Marietta v. Springer, 193 Kan. 266 , 392 P.2d 858 .) On the other hand, we have been consistent in holding that one who makes a social visit, even by express invitation, is merely a social guest and does not come within the category of either a business or a public invitee. (Ralls v. Caliendo, 198 Kan. 84 , 422 P.2d 862 ; Duckers v. Lynch, 204 Kan. 649 , 465 P.2d 945 .) “There are however, situations where the line between social and business visitors may not be drawn so clearly; where the benefit to the landowner or the mutuality of interest and advantage to both invitor and invitee may not be so obvious or patent. Occasions may arise when the evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, may reasonably admit of more than one conclusion, and where such be the case, the matter is one of fact for submission to a jury — or to the court where it is acting as the trier of the facts. . . .” (p. 343.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(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
  3. ““A business invitee, or other invitee of equal status, is one who goes on another’s premises at the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for the benefit of the invitor, or for the mutual benefit and advantage of both invitor and invitee.” (Syl. ft 3.)”
    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.