William S. Cooper v. William R. Goodwin’s Empirical Analysis
478 F.2d 653 · 1973
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 294
Relies on Kermarec v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique · Peterson v. Balach · International Harvester Co. v. Ruckelshaus · Ralph D. Smith and Thelma Smith v. Arbaugh's Restaurant, Inc., a Body Corporate · Firfer v. United States
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“. I agree with the majority that the sound evolution that is the hallmark of the common law has brought it at the present time to the point where the traditional distinction between licensees and invitees is properly considered the relic of a bygone age. . . . This does not, however, mean that the requirements of judicial administration in a modern, largely urban, industrialized society necessarily extend so far as to require a change in the liability of an occupant of land to a trespasser. . . This was the problem that particularly prompted my separate opinion in [Arbaugh’s Restaurant].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Actually, the question of the degree of care owed by property owners to trespassers is not presented in this case, it was neither briefed nor argued. The discussion about the duty to trespassers is entirely gratuitous and without foundation in the record. [Cooper v. Goodwin, supra, 155 U.S.App.D.C. at 454, 478 F.2d at 658 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It would appear, although we need not decide, that the question of what degree of care should be exercised toward those traditionally labelled “trespassers” will, under the logic of this standard, depend to a large extent on the foreseeability of their presence and hence the foreseeability of the injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.