Katherine James, Administratrix of the Estate of Frank James, Deceased v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company’s Empirical Analysis
464 F.2d 173 · 1972
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently January 1991 · most notably Mustang Fuel Corp. v. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. (1975), Dzenits v. Lynch (1974)
17 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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 Avrick v. Rockmont Envelope Co. · Lucero Ex Rel. Lucero v. Torres · Broderick Wood Products Co. v. United States · Clausen & Sons, Inc. v. Theo. Hamm Brewing Co. · Jones v. Atlanta-Charlotte Air Line R. 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““§ 334. Activities Highly Dangerous to Constant Trespassers on Limited Area. “A possessor of land who knows, or from facts within his knowledge should know, that trespassers constantly intrude upon a limited area thereof, is subject to liability for bodily harm there caused to them by his failure to carry on an activity involving a risk of death or serious bodily harm with reasonable care for their safety.” “§ 336. Activities Dangerous to Known Trespassers. “A possessor of land who knows or has reason to know of the presence of another who is trespassing on the land is subject to liability for physical harm thereafter caused to the trespasser by the possessor’s failure to carry on his activities upon the land with reasonable care for the trespasser’s safety. “§ 500. Reckless Disregard of Safety Defined. “The actor’s conduct is in reckless disregard of the safety of another if he does an act or intentionally fails to do an act which it is his duty to the other to do, knowing or having reason to know of facts which would lead a reasonable man to realize, not only that his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another, but also that such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.””
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.