Graham v. M & J CORP.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. (1985), Mullins v. Pine Manor College (1983)
8 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 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 California Department of Human Resources Development v. Java · Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark · Ethel Javins v. First National Realty Corporation, Rudolph Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation, Stanley Gross v. First National Realty Corporation · Lillie v. Thompson · Scott v. Watson
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]oreseeability is the key element in establishing the landlord's duty”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the actor’s negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“where reasonable [persons] might differ over the question of whether an intervening force is a reasonable, foreseeable consequence of defendant’s conduct, the issue of probable cause should not be determined as a matter of law.” 424 A.2d at 107. 5 . See supra note 1. 6 . In reaching this conclusion we also observe that the District was the beneficiary of a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.