262 Ga. App. 814 - Phiel v. Boston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

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

1. “[Kringle] has introduced no evidence that this dog had ever bitten anyone before and also has introduced no evidence that the dog had a tendency to attack humans or that [Elliott] had any knowledge about the dog’s temperament that would have put [her] on notice that the dog would bite someone . . . , [Elliott] was entitled to a directed verdict on the issue of [her] dog’s propensity to bite.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 301 Ga. App. 1 - Kringle v. Elliott

2. “Under this rule, a dog owner will be liable for damages only if the owner has knowledge that the dog has the propensity to do the particular act (biting) which caused injury to the complaining party. Under this test, the plaintiff must show whether the dog had the propensity to do the act that caused the injury and, if so, whether the owner had knowledge of that propensity.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 301 Ga. App. 1 - Kringle v. Elliott