Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 273 F.2d 295 - Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Combs

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Combs’s Empirical Analysis

273 F.2d 295 · 1960

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
December 1990
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1990 · most notably Anderson v. United States (1974), United States v. Sidney Levine and Mpd Film Productions, Inc. (1977)

21 federal appellate · 1 district ·

1501960197019801990decided

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 Standard Oil Company of California v. Moore · Houston Oxygen Co. v. Davis · Carter Products, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission · 9 Wash. 2d 93 - Moen v. Chestnut

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

  1. ““Mrs. Louella Combs was shopping in a Safeway Store in El Paso, Texas, when she stepped into a puddle of ketchup that had spilled on the floor from a broken bottle. Mr. and Mrs. Combs sued Safeway Stores, Inc., alleging that the defendant was negligent in creating a hazardous condition ; in failing to remove the ketchup or in failing to isolate the hazardous condition by placing a barrier around the ketchup; in failing to warn Mrs. Combs of the presence of £he ketchup; and in allowing the ketchup to remain on the floor in the immediate vicinity of an eye-catching advertising display that would divert one’s attention from the ketchup puddle. Safeway Stores relies upon Mrs. Combs’ alleged failure to keep a proper lookout, failure to heed an alleged warning, and on the contention that the hazard, such as it was, was open and obvious.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.