Gresser v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 1983
2 federal appellate · 11 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 Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Martin · Anderson v. Theisen · Lewis v. Wolk · Spurlin, Administratrix v. Richardson · MacK v. McGrath
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.
““A jury could have found the golf course liable. Plaintiff, who had paid to participate in the tournament, was a business invitee. * * * Because of this, the golf course, operating a place of public amusement, owed a duty to protect him from dangers it should have expected he would fail to discover, appreciate, or guard against, including not only dangers of which it was aware but also those which in the exercise of reasonable care it should have discovered. # # # “This duty included protecting plaintiff from harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons and by its failure to exercise reasonable care to discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done. * * * It had a duty to use reasonable care to protect plaintiff from such acts of third persons even though the acts were committed outside the golf course’s premises. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Holdshoe v. Whinery““Although intervening time is no doubt a factor to be considered by the jury, Gorfain v. Gorfain, 118 Conn. 484 , 172 A. 924 , we believe the time lapse under the circumstances of this case was not a sufficient ground for directing a verdict for defendants. See, Price v. McDonald, 7 Cal.App.2d 77 , 45 P.2d 425 (6 hours); Landrum v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. (La.App.) 151 So.2d 701 (20-30 minutes); Litos v. Sullivan, 322 Mass. 193 , 76 N.E.2d 557 (5 hours); Bacon v. Snashall, 238 Mich. 457 , 213 N.W. 705 (1 hour); Vaughn v. Meier (Mo.) 246 S.W. 279 (10 to 45 minutes); Shepherd v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 233 S.C. 536 , 106 S.E.2d 381 (1 hour).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Thompson“[I]t is common knowledge that business proprietors of lands where parking is done, particularly where cars are parked upon sloping ground, utilize fences, logs, railroad ties, cement barriers, and the like to keep the parked car in a safe position.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Johnson v. Hatoum
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.