Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 239 Miss. 470 - Wright v. Caffey

Wright v. Caffey’s Empirical Analysis

1960

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
2
states following
April 2015
most recently cited

39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 358 So. 2d 1008 - Hoffman v. Planters Gin Co., Inc. (1978), Corley v. Evans (2003)

39 state decisions

120196019701980199020002010decided

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 Laube v. Stevenson · Sanders v. Brown · Wolfson v. Chelist · Roberts v. Mississippi Power & Light Co. · Patterson v. Sayers

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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]s to status, an invitee is a person who goes upon the premises of another in answer to the express or implied invitation of the owner or occupant for their mutual advantage ... A licensee is one who enters upon the property of another for his own convenience, pleasure, or benefit pursuant to the license or implied permission of the owner whereas a trespasser is one who enters upon another's premises without license, invitation, or other right.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The guest assumes the ordinary risks which attach to the premises. No exception is made to the rule because of the fact that the guest enters on the host's express invitation to enjoy his hospitality. It is said that the owner or occupant must have a beneficial interest in a visit in order to impose upon him the duty of using reasonable care in having the premises in a safe condition for the visitor, and that the intangible advantages which arise from mere social contacts do not comprise such an interest. A better reason for the rule is that a host merely offers his premises for enjoyment by his guests with the same security that the host and the members of his family who reside with him have.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “A social guest on the host's premises or in his home must take the premises as he finds them, with no greater right than a mere licensee with respect to the host's liability for injuries to the guest.”
    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.