Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 289 A2D 39 - Jones v. Billings

Jones v. Billings’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
6
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2009 · most notably Rosenau Ex Rel. Rosenau v. City of Estherville (1972), Myrick v. James (1982)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions

1201972198019902000decided

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 Railroad Company v. Stout · Kefee v. Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co. · Haddad v. First National Stores, Inc. · Richmond v. Warren Institution for Savings · Wells v. Henry W. Kuhs Realty Co.

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 33 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”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This is a penal statute which includes no provision for a civil remedy in event of violation. In the absence of a clear indication of legislative intent to enlarge or extend the duty owned at common law, we have consistently declined to treat a statute or ordinance exclusively penal in nature as having such effect. Such was the import and intended meaning of holdings that violation of a penal statute would not constitute “negligence per se.” ... Specifically, this statute in no way enlarges the common law duty owed to trespassers. However, evidence of a violation of the “well” statute, if indeed the condition described in the complaint constitutes a “well” as defined by the statute, might be received as evidence of negligence if it were first shown that the circumstances and the relationship between the defendant and the decedent were such as to impose upon the defendant a duty to exercise care for his safety. That duty is not, however, raised by the statute itself but must be raised independently thereof.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““The test of the sufficiency of a complaint under the new rules of civil procedure is whether or not it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim.” 289 A.2d 39, 40 (Me.1972).”
    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.