206 Ga. App. 265 - Wade v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably 230 Ga. App. 679 - Sharfuddin v. Drug Emporium, Inc. (1998), 211 Ga. App. 534 - Wallace v. Boys Club of Albany, Georgia, Inc. (1993)
2 federal appellate · 48 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 Lau's Corp., Inc. v. Haskins · 158 Ga. App. 166 - Pound v. Augusta National, Inc. · Thompson v. Crownover · Cook v. Southern Railway Co. · 68 Ga. App. 637 - Callaway v. Pickard
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]xcept in plain, palpable and undisputed cases where reasonable minds cannot differ as to the conclusions to be reached.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[i]t is also usually wilful or wanton not to exercise ordinary care to prevent injuring a person who is actually known to be or may reasonably be expected to be, within range of a dangerous act being done or a hidden peril on one's premises. In other words, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to licensees by a condition on the land if, but only if , (a) the possessor knows or has reason to know of the condition and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such licensees, and should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, and (b) he fails to exercise reasonable care to make the condition safe, or to warn the licensees of the condition and the risk involved, and (c) the licensees do not know or have reason to know of the condition and the risk involved. Where a licensee has equal knowledge of the dangerous condition or the risks involved, there is no wilful or wanton action on the part of the owner and there is no liability to the licensee.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“a full appreciation of the danger involved.”
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.