Schichtl v. Slack’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc. (1993), Delta School of Commerce, Inc. v. Wood (1989)
6 federal appellate · 28 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 Kitchen v. State · Keck v. American Employment Agency, Inc. · Dulin v. Circle F Industries, Inc. · Lewis v. Buena Vista Mutual Insurance Association · Ward v. State
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n liability based on negligence, whether one knew or should have known of a potential danger is a necessary constituent of fault.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[Mjotions in limine are not to be used as a sweeping means of testing issues of law. Such motions are to be used to prevent some specific matter, perhaps inflammatory, from being inteijected prior to the trial court’s having decided on its admissibility outside the hearing of the jury. Kozy Kitchen v. State, 271 Ark. 1 , 607 S.W.2d 345 (1980); Arkansas State Highway Comm. v. Pulaski Inv. Co., 272 Ark. 389 , 614 S.W.2d 675 (1981). In Kozy Kitchen v. State we refused to reverse the denial of a vague motion in limine which, like this one, was filed without legal authority on the morning of trial. We cited Bridges v. City of Richardson, 349 S.W.2d 644 (Tex.Civ.App. 1961) where it was said that motions in limine are to enlighten the court and advise counsel of the specific nature of the anticipated testimony so that the court may intelligently act on such motions. Here, the trial judge knew nothing of the case except as may have been revealed by the pleadings or the brief argument in chambers.Yet he was asked to rule that Schichd was under no duty to warn Slack of the possibility of fire no matter what the circumstances of the case. Without some legal authority supporting that proposal, we do not regard it as error for the trial court to refuse to grant a motion in limine. In Lewis v. Buena Vista Mutual Ins. Assn, 183 N.W.2d 198 (Iowa, 1971), also cited approvingly in Kozy Kitchen, the Iowa Supreme Court described the purpose of motions in limine: The motion in limine is a useful ”
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.