Ferreira v. Strack’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Jupin v. Kask (2006), Davis v. Westwood Group (1995)
2 federal appellate · 8 district · 45 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 Goldberg v. Housing Auth. of City of Newark · 116 Wash. 2d 217 - Hutchins v. 1001 Fourth Avenue Associates · Waters v. New York City Housing Authority · D'Ambra v. United States · Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp.
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First and most importantly, the duty to control traffic has traditionally rested squarely with the government.... Second, the church had no control over the property on which the injury occurred. ... Third, the church had no control over the instrumentality causing the injury.... Fourth, we express concern that if we were to impose a duty upon a landowner to patrol traffic on public ways, the line which would cut off the landowner’s liability then becomes nearly impossible to draw. Fifth, the expense of traffic control should be borne by the public at large and not by individual landowners abutting public ways.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a landowner has [no] duty to protect another from intentional criminal acts of third parties which take place on adjacent property or the public way.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]t is impossible to defíne the scope of any duty owed by a landowner off premises owned or controlled by him. The instant case cannot be distinguished from that of a movie theater showing the latest academy award winning movie, or a department store holding its annual clearance sale, neither of which is able to afford sufficient parking for the number of invitees seeking to enter the premises. We are aware of no obligation upon the movie theater or department store owner to provide additional lighting on the city streets or hire security guards to patrol those streets for the safety of its invitees. Nor can the instant situation be distinguished from that of a homeowner whose business guests must park on city streets because there is not sufficient parking on the premises. It is not legally incumbent upon the homeowner to provide additional lighting or hire security guards to escort his guests to their cars.”
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.