Davis v. Whitsett’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 2023
12 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 Landrum v. Roddy · A. A. Murphy, Inc. v. Banfield · Harrison v. Birrell · Brackman Ex Rel. Schaub v. Brackman · Kinney v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co.
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Analysis of the opinions in the above cited cases [see footnote 1] discloses that in each one the proof of a breach of some alleged local custom or usage would also establish the existence and a breach of an obligation of the defendant to the plaintiff. The breach in each case was the basis of the plaintiff's claim of damage. The court in the cases applied the rule as set out in Smith v. Stewart et al., supra, as follows: `* * * it is generally the rule that, before a local custom or a custom or usage applying to a special or particular class of business may be made the basis of recovery, it must be pleaded by the party relying on it. * * *' * * * * * * "The reason behind the requirement of the cited cases that the custom be pleaded is that the violation of the custom is the very basis upon which plaintiff's cause of action depends. The same reason does not exist in the case before us. "In this case if the plaintiff relied, for his cause of action, upon the defendants' breach of a custom which required the latter to steam clean a recently used oil tank before permitting a welder to work on it, then clearly the above cited cases would require the pleading of such a duty and the breach thereof. Here, however, the issue is whether or not the defendant knew of the danger and failed to warn plaintiff's decedent of the existence of volatile fumes in the tank, before the latter was advised by the agents of defendants that the tank was "ready" for welding. The evidence was admissibl”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An owner of premises who has engaged an independent contractor to do work on his premises owes to such invitee the duty to keep the premises reasonably safe for the performance of the work.”
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.