Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 NW2D 381 - Haafke v. Mitchell

Haafke v. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
6
states following
May 2015
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 2015

21 state decisions

1301984199020002010decided

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 Jones v. Rath Packing Co. · 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · Rappaport v. Nichols · Cooper v. Florida · Elder v. Fisher

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

  1. “(1) the existence of a duty to conform to a standard of conduct for the protection of others; (2) failure to conform to that standard; (3) a reasonably close causal connection ...; and (4) damages.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer or other person who shall be injured in person or property or means of support by any intoxicated person or resulting from the intoxication of any such person, shall have a right of action, severally or jointly, against any licensee or permittee, who shall sell or give any beer or intoxicating liquor to any such person while he or she is ■ intoxicated, or serve any such person to a point where such person is intoxicated, for all damages actually sustained.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Applying the principles of common-law liability discussed above, we hold that these employees may be held liable under common law for negligence in furnishing liquor to Miller, and such negligence may be based upon violations of statute or ordinance as alleged here, under the authority of Lewis . This liability is not preempted by the dram shop act.”
    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.