Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 701 F. Supp. 943 - Kantner v. Combustion Engineering

701 F. Supp. 943 - Kantner v. Combustion Engineering’s Empirical Analysis

1988

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
3
states following
October 2010
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2010

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions

501988199020002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Smith v. Harmsen · Cosoff v. Rodman · Carson v. Maurer

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

  1. “An owner, occupant, or lessee of land, including the state or any political subdivision, who without charge permits any person to use land for recreational purposes or as a spectator of recreational activity, shall not be liable for personal injury or property damage in the absence of intentionally caused injury or damage.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “I. An owner, lessee or occupant of premises owes no duty of care to keep such premises safe for entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, trapping, camping, horseback riding, water sports, winter sports or OHRVs ... , hiking, sightseeing, or removal of fuelwood, or to give any warning of hazardous conditions, uses of, structures, or activities on such premises to persons entering for such purposes, except as provided in paragraph III hereof. II. An owner, lessee or occupant of premises who gives permission to another to hunt, fish, trap, camp, ride horseback, hike, use OHRVs ... , sightsee upon, or remove fuelwood from, such premises, or use said premises for water sports, or winter sports does not thereby: (a) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for such purpose, or (b) Constitute the person to whom permission has been granted the legal status of an invitee to whom a duty of care is owed, or (c) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for an injury to person or property caused by any act of such person to whom permission has been granted except as provided in paragraph III hereof. III. This section does not limit the liability which otherwise exists: (a) For willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure or activity; or (b) For injury suffered in any case where permission to hunt, fish, trap, camp, ride horseback, hike, use for water sports, winter sports or use of OHRVs ... , sightsee, or remove fuelwood was g”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and adipissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.