Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 268 Or. 378 - Loney v. McPhillips

Loney v. McPhillips’s Empirical Analysis

1974

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
4
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

4 district · 9 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act)

Relies on Richards v. United States · Rowland v. Christian · Plotzki v. Standard Oil Co. · Tavis v. City of Kansas City · Pocholec v. GIUSTINA

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

  1. “"`(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and "`(b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and "`(c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and "`(d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and "`(e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.'" 521 P.2d at 341 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land — the definition of which we may assume to include the presence of an unattended horse — if the following elements are successfully established:”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “An owner of land owes no duty of care to keep the land safe for entry or use by others for any recreational purpose or to give any warning of a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity on the land to persons entering thereon for any such purpose.”
    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.