Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 291 Ala. 434 - Standifer v. Pate

Standifer v. Pate’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
4
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably Williams v. State (2007), St. Paul Mercury Ins. v. Chilton-Shelby (1992)

4 federal appellate · 47 state decisions

200197319801990200020102020decided

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 Beasley v. MacDonald Engineering Co. · Autry v. Roebuck Park Baptist Church · Sheffield Co. v. Morton · Parker v. Hodgson · 47 N.J. Super. 125 - BARBARISI EX REL. BARBARISI v. Caruso

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

  1. “" ‘As a general rule, a person who undertakes the control and supervision of a child, even without compensation, has the duty to use reasonable care to protect the child from injury. Such person is not an insurer of the safety of the child. He is required only to use reasonable care commensurate with the reasonably foreseeable risks of harm.’ "”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “". . . The occurrence of the breach of duty on one's own premises is a mere fortuity."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) his failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) the harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking."”
    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.