Felder v. Butler’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 108 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 122 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably El Chico Corp. v. Poole (1987), Ling v. Jan's Liquors (1985)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 108 state decisions — followed in 15 states
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 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · Adler v. American Standard Corp. · Rappaport v. Nichols · 2 Ill. 2d 74 - Ney v. Yellow Cab Co. · Harris v. Jones
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 122 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Apart from statute, the common law knows no right of action against a seller of intoxicating liquors, as such, for “causing” the intoxication of the person whose negligence or wilful wrong has caused injury. Human beings, drunk or sober, are responsible for their own torts. The law (apart from statute) recognizes no relation of proximate cause between the sale of liquor and a tort committed by a buyer who has drunk the liquor. * * * The common-law rule holds the man who drank the liquor liable, and considers the act of selling it as too remote to be a proximate cause of an injury caused by the negligent act of the purchaser of the drink.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Although empowered to change common law rules in light of changed conditions, the Court has always recognized that declaration of public policy is normally the function of the legislative branch of government. Adler [v. American Standard Corp.], 291 Md. [31,] at 45 [, 432 A.2d 464 (1981)]. The Court has therefore declined to alter a common law rule in the face of indications that to do so would be contrary to the public policy of the State, as declared by the General Assembly of Maryland.” Id. at 183, 438 A.2d at 499 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The facts of this case undoubtedly could serve as the impetus to adjusting Maryland jurisprudence on the topic of dram shop liability. This Court, however, is not the proper Court to make such a radical change in Maryland jurisprudence. The decision to overturn stare decisis is the province of the Maryland Court of Appeals. Consequently, this Court is bound by stare decisis and must grant the Defendant summary judgment. The Court is of the opinion that while the Maryland Legislature has not enacted dram shop liability legislation, it has not expressly prohibited it. The Court of Appeals, thus, is in a unique position where it can harmonize our jurisprudence with current societal conditions without being in conflict with the Maryland Legislature. The Maryland Court of Appeals has not hesitated to adopt a new cause of action by judicial decision when it had concluded that course was compelled by changing circumstances. This Court is of the opinion that the same holds true for dram shop liability. For the reasons set forth herein and reflected in the attached Order, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.”
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.