Ferreira v. Strack’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc. (1996), Smith v. Merritt (1997)
1 federal appellate · 5 district · 16 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 Kelly v. Gwinnell · Langle v. Kurkul · Graff v. Beard · Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp. · McGuiggan v. New England Telephone & Telegraph 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.
“[t]he imposition of liability upon social hosts * * * has such serious implications that any action taken should be taken by the Legislature after careful investigation, scrutiny, and debate. It is abundantly clear that greater legislative resources and the opportunity for broad public input would more readily enable the Legislature to fashion an appropriate remedy to deal with the scope and severity of this problem.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he creation of new causes of action [regarding social host liability] should be left to the Legislature.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In Rhode Island `negligence is the breach of a duty, the existence of which is a question of law.' Barratt v. Burlingham , 492 A.2d 1219 , 1222 (R.I. 1985). `Whether there exists a duty of care running from the defendant to the plaintiff is, therefore, a question for the court and not for the jury.' Banks v. Bowen's Landing Corp. , 522 A.2d 1222 , 1224 (R.I. 1987). * * * In Banks we stated: `No clear-cut rule exists to determine whether a duty is in fact present in a particular case; however, courts such as the California Supreme Court have articulated several factors that may be applied to aid in that determination. In considering whether a duty exists, among the factors considered are (1) the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, (2) the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered an injury, (3) the closeness of connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered, (4) the policy of preventing future harm, and (5) *Page 713 the extent of the burden to the defendant and the consequences to the community for imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach.' Id . at 1225."”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Salmeron v. Nava
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.