Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 528 SW2D 188 - Cornpropst v. Sloan

Cornpropst v. Sloan’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
21
states following
December 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently December 2017 · most notably 42 Cal. 3d 490 - Frances T. v. Village Green Owners Assn. (1986), Butler v. Acme Markets, Inc. (1982)

10 federal appellate · 90 state decisions — followed in 21 states

42019751980199020002010decided

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 65 Cal. 2d 114 - Taylor v. Centennial Bowl, Inc. · 119 Ill. App. 2d 105 - O'BRIEN v. Colonial Village, Inc. · Twin City Amusement Company v. Salater · Corbitt v. Ringley-Crockett, Inc. · Thomas v. General Electric 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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “There is no duty upon the owners or operators of a shopping center, individually or collectively, or upon merchants and shopkeepers generally, whose mode of operation of their premises does not attract or provide a climate for crime, to guard against the criminal acts of a third party, unless they know or have reason to know that acts are occurring or about to occur on the premises that pose imminent probability of harm to an invitee; whereupon a duty of reasonable care to protect against such act arises.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"Business Premises Open to Public: Acts of Third Persons or Animals. "A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intentionally harmful acts of third persons or animals, and by the failure of the possessor to exercise reasonable care to "(a) discover that such acts are being done or are likely to be done, or "(b) give a warning adequate to enable the visitors to avoid the harm, or otherwise to protect them against it.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “I further charge you that if the owner is to be held liable for certain criminal acts of third persons, there must be a showing that the owner was on notice in some manner of the imminent probability of the act.”
    3 later decisions 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.