Mitchell v. Pearson Enterprises’s Empirical Analysis
1985
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Alf v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1993), Harline v. Barker (1996)
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 27 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 Nallan v. Helmsley-Spear, Inc. · E. I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Universal Moulded Products Corp. · Friedman v. Peoples Service Drug Stores, Inc. · Walkoviak v. Hilton Hotels Corp. · 89 Wis. 2d 115 - Peters v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An event is the legal or proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury when the event 'in natural and continuous sequence, (unbroken by an efficient intervening cause), produces the injury and without which the result would not have occurred.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“the inquiry does not end there. Demonstrating material issues of fact with respect to defendants’ negligence is not suffi- dent to preclude summary judgment if there is no evidence that establishes a direct causal connection between that alleged negligence and the injury. Certainly, ordinarily the issue of proximate cause is a matter to be submitted to the jury for its determination. However, in appropriate circumstances summary judgment may be granted on the issue of proximate cause. In this case, plaintiffs failed to make out a case based on the specific acts of alleged negligence because there is an absence of proof that the alleged negligence was the proximate cause of Mitchell’s death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for business purposes is subject to liability for injuries to members of the public where harm is caused by negligent or intentional acts of third persons provided the possessor of the land failed to exercise reasonable care to discover that such acts are being done or likely to be done, or to give a warning adequate to enable visitors to avoid harm.”
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.