21 Cal. App. 4th 310 - Johnson v. Unocal Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably 50 Cal. 4th 68 - Klein v. United States (2010), 81 Cal. App. 4th 108 - Calhoon v. Lewis (2000)
6 federal appellate · 14 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 4 Cal. 4th 1095 - Ornelas v. Randolph · 48 Cal. 3d 84 - Title Insurance & Trust Co. v. County of Riverside · 32 Cal. 2d 193 - County of Alameda v. Kuchel · 50 Cal. 3d 189 - Hubbard v. Brown · Nazar v. Rodeffer
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An owner of any estate or any other interest in real property ... owes no duty of care to keep the premises safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purpose, except as provided in this section. A “recreational purpose,” as used in this section, includes such activities as fishing, hunting, camping, water sports, hiking, spelunking, sport parachuting, riding, including animal riding, snowmobiling, and all other types of vehicular riding, rock collecting, sightseeing, picnicking, nature study, nature contacting, recreational gardening, gleaning, hang gliding, winter sports, and viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, natural, or scientific sites. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists ... to any persons who are expressly invited rather than merely permitted to come upon the premises by the landowner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Johnson contends he is an express invitee because Abex executed Unocal’s permission agreement. The execution of this agreement between Abex and Unocal is not a direct, personal request from Unocal to Johnson to attend this picnic. Therefore, Johnson is not an express invitee of Unocal. He does not fall within the exception to immunity established by .section 846 for express invitees.”
2 later decisions 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.