Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 382 S.W.2d 921 - Wesson v. Gillespie

Wesson v. Gillespie’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
2
states following
March 1980
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 1980 · most notably Parker v. Highland Park, Inc. (1978), Scott v. Liebman (1966)

5 federal appellate · 34 state decisions

200196419701980decided

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 Robert E. McKee, General Contractor v. Patterson · Triangle Motors of Dallas v. Richmond · Houston National Bank v. Adair · Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc. · Marshall v. San Jacinto Bldg., Inc.

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

  1. “"The holdings of this Court are that ordinarily a plaintiff-invitee cannot recover if he knows of the condition, realizes the danger, and appreciates the danger, or is charged in law with such knowledge, realization, and appreciation.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““If we consider that the testimony of the plaintiff that ‘it had always been dangerous; that she so considered it; but she kept on using it’ referred to the entrance including the threshold, then the case is simple. By this statement, she admitted that she knew of the condition, knew it was dangerous, and appreciated the particular danger. Notwithstanding this knowledge and appreciation, she continued to use the entrance. She could not then recover. McKee v. Patterson, 153 Tex. 517 , 271 S. W.2d 391 (1954).” See also Triangle Motors of Dallas v. Richmond, 152 Tex. 354 , 258 S.W.2d 60 (1953).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “must fall within the area of charged knowledge and appreciation.”
    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.