Owen v. Hampson’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Thompson v. Magic City Trucking Service (1963), Alex v. Armstrong (1964)
36 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 Grider v. Tally · Merriweather v. Sayre Mining & Mfg. Co. · Netusil v. Novak · Graham v. Payne · Strouse v. Leipf
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Previous knowledge of the animal's vicious habits must be alleged and proved. But positive proof is not always necessary. It may be inferred from the circumstances. But the knowledge of the vicious habits of an animal need not refer to circumstances of exactly the same kind. All that the law requires to make the owner or keeper liable is knowledge of facts from which he can infer that the animal is likely to commit an act of the kind complained of.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““Based on a review of our cases, as well as those from other jurisdictions, it is our opinion that the law makes no distinction between an animal dangerous from viciousness and one merely mischievous or dangerous from playfulness, but puts on the owner of both the duty of restraint when he knows of the animal’s propensities. Crowley v. Groonell, 73 Vt. 45 , 50 A. 546 , 55 L.R.A. 876 ; State [Evans] v. McDermott, 49 N.J.L. 163 , 6 A. 653 ; Knowles v. Mulder, 74 Mich. 202 , 41 N.W. 896 ; Hicks v. Sullivan, 122 Cal.App. 635 , 10 P.2d 516 ; Mercer v. Marston, 3 La. App. 97 ; Hartman v. Aschaffenburg, La.App., 12 So.2d 282 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““An Alabama ease argues what seems to us the correct rule: Owen v. Hampson, 258 Ala. 228 , 62 So. 2d 245, 248 (1952), in which the court said: ‘Based on a review of our cases, as well as those from other jurisdictions, it is our opinion that the law makes no distinction between an animal dangerous from viciousness- and one merely mischievous or dangerous from playfulness, but puts on the owner of both the duty of restraint when he knows of the animal’s propensities, [citing cases] “ ‘In 3 C..I.S. §148 e, p. 1250, under the title Animals the rule is stated thus:' “A vicious propensity is a propensity or tendency of an animal to do any act that might endanger the safety of the persons and property of others in a given situation: Although an' animal is actuated solely by mischievousness or playfulness, rather, than maliciousness or ferociousness, yet if it has a tendency to do a dangerous or harmful act, it has a vicious propensity within the meaning of the rule holding the owner or keeper liable for injuries resulting from vicious propensities of which he has knowledge.” ’ ””
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.