Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 698 P2D 826 - Crespin v. Largo Corp.

Crespin v. Largo Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
October 2009
most recently cited

1 district · 5 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Broncucia v. McGee · Metropolitan Gas Repair Service, Inc. v. Kulik · City of Aurora v. Loveless · Hudson v. American Founders Life Ins. Co. of Denver · Lambotte v. Payton

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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person who is injured in person, or property, or means of support by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his name, against any person who, by selling or giving away intoxicating liquors to any habitual drunkard, causes the intoxication, in whole or in part, of such habitual drunkard; ... No liability shall accrue against any such person as provided unless the husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, or employer first, by written or printed notice, has notified such person, or his agents, or employees not to sell or give away any intoxicating liquors to any habitual drunkard.” (emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “You are instructed that at the time of the accident involved in this case there existed a State statute, C.R.S., 1973, 12-47-128(l)(a), which provided as follows: “It is unlawful for any person: (a) to sell, serve, give away, dispose of, exchange, deliver or permit the sale, serving, giving, or procuring of any malt, vinous, or spirituous liquor to or for any person under the age of twenty-one years, to a visibly intoxicated person, or to a known habitual drunkard.” A violation of the State statute constitutes negligence....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The violation of an ordinance adopted for the safety of the public may be negligence per se if it is established that such violation was a proximate cause of the injury.”
    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.