54 Tenn. App. 656 - Mitchell v. Ketner’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 64 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently March 2009 · most notably 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager (1971), El Chico Corp. v. Poole (1987)
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 64 state decisions — followed in 22 states
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 Rappaport v. Nichols · Niukkanen v. McAlexander · Cruse v. Aden · Manthei v. Heimerdinger · 46 Tenn. App. 1 - Sadler v. Draper
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Although it is evident that the strict civil liability prevailing by statute in many of the states is a much heavier responsibility, the defendants urge that the sustaining of the plaintiff’s complaint will place an ‘inconceivable’ burden on them. We are fully mindful that policy considerations and the balancing of the conflicting interests are the truly vital factors in the molding and application of the common law principles of negligence and proximate causation. But we are convinced that recognition of the plaintiff’s claim will afford a fairer measure of justice to innocent third parties whose injuries are brought about by the unlawful and negligent sale of alcoholic beverages to minors and intoxicated persons, will strengthen and give greater force to the enlightened statutory and regulatory precautions against such sales and their frightening consequences, and will not place any unjustifiable burdens upon defendants who can always discharge their civil responsibilities by the exercise of due care. It must be borne in mind that the plaintiff’s complaint has no relation to service by persons not engaged in the liquor business or to lawful sales and service by liquor licensees, or to sales by reasonably prudent licensees who do not know or have reason to believe that the patron is a minor or is intoxicated when served; the allegations of the complaint are expressly confined to tavern keepers’ sales and service which are unlawful and negligent. Liquor licensees, who operat”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The ultimate test is one of foreseeability which in turn must rest on such factors as the apparent condition of the buyer of the intoxicant and whether he is likely to become the driver of an automobile or inflict injury upon third persons by some other means reasonably to be anticipated or foreseen. Id., at 759 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We are unwilling to hold that, no matter what the circumstances, the act of the purchaser and not the sale constitutes the proximate cause of injury to third persons or that consumption of the intoxicant is always an independent, intervening act which breaks the chain of causation. 393 S.W.2d 759 .”
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.