Williams v. Reasoner’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
December 2009
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on King v. Henkie · DeLoach v. Mayer Elec. Supply Co. · 513 So. 2d 958 - Martin v. Watts · 560 So. 2d 1030 - Parker v. Miller Brewing Co. · Beeson v. Scoles Cadillac 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Martin v. Watts, [ 513 So.2d 958 (Ala.1987) ], is dispositive of the claim alleging liability under the Dram Shop Act. In Martin v. Watts, the defendant, Richard Watts, occupied the same position as does the homeowner in this case. Watts allowed his lake house to be used by high school students, under 18 years of age, for a party, with knowledge- that they would drink alcohol at the party. Watts was present during the party, but he did not provide the minors with alcoholic beverages. A minor who became intoxicated at Watts’s lake house, had an automobile accident after leaving the lake house, and injured the plaintiffs, who sued Watts and others, alleging liability under the Dram Shop Act and alleging common law negligence. The trial court granted Watts’s motion for a summary judgment; this Court unanimously affirmed that summary judgment. See, also, Liao v. Harry’s Bar, 574 So.2d 775 (Ala.1990), and Baker v. Pi Kappa Phi Fraternity, 628 So.2d 423 (Ala.1993).””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Runyans v. Littrell““Since April 21, 1994, it has been a misdemeanor for an adult homeowner to allow an ‘open house party’ at her residence where alcohol is consumed by persons under the age of 21 years. Ala. Code 1975, § 13A-11-10.1. The occurrence that is the basis for this appeal occurred before the effective date of that statute. We do not address what effect, if any, § 13A-11-10.1 would have on our decision if that Code section had been in effect at the time of the occurrence made the basis of this appeal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Runyans v. Littrell
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.