Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 438 SO2D 356 - Allen v. Babrab, Inc.

Allen v. Babrab, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
5
states following
January 2014
most recently cited

19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2014

19 state decisions

801983199020002010decided

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 Purcell v. Deli Man, Inc. · 386 So. 2d 520 - Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. · 436 So. 2d 33 - Stevens v. Jefferson · 385 So. 2d 1378 - Relyea v. State · 398 So. 2d 834 - Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gilday

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

  1. “For[e]seeability may be established by proving that a proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a particular assailant’s inclination toward violence or by proving that the proprietor had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on his premises that was likely to cause harm to a patron. A dangerous condition may be indicated if, according to past experience (i.e., reputation of the tavern), there is a likelihood of disorderly conduct by third persons in general which might endanger the safety of patrons or if security staffing is inadequate. These indicia are not exhaustive.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Foreseeability of an intervening cause is a question for the trier of fact.”
    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.