Davis v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
716 F.2d 418 · 1983
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Duckworth v. Franzen (1985), 148 Ill. 2d 429 - Burke v. 12 Rothschild's Liquor Mart, Inc. (1992)
33 federal appellate · 1 district · 15 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674
Relies on Dimick v. Schiedt · Erlenbaugh v. United States · 85 Ill. 2d 1 - Alvis v. Ribar · Bielski v. Schulze · 36 Ill. 2d 516 - Lance v. Senior
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o dive from the shore of a lake that has not been marked as safe for diving is negligence per se unless the diver has taken careful soundings of the depth of the lake at the point where he will hit the water”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“■ “The government asks us to reconsider our holding in Miller that landowners subject to the Licensing Act may no longer claim immunity from tort liability under the [Recreational] Use Act 4 4 *. The government points out 4 4 4 that the two acts are not literally inconsistent, which is true but ignores their purposes. The [Recreational] Use Act, passed in 1965, was designed to encourage landowners to open up their property for free public recreation. By 1971, when the Licensing Act was passed, the state had become concerned about safety and health at recreational areas, whether or not operated on a user-fee basis, that contained facilities for overnight stays. The Licensing Act brought these areas under a detailed scheme of licensing requirements and other regulatory controls 4 4 *. It would be odd if, having brought under the strict safety and health requirements of the Licensing Act a subset of the landowners who had been encouraged by the earlier [Recreational] Use Act to open their land to public recreation, the state wanted these landowners to continue to enjoy the almost complete immunity from tort liability conferred by that act. . . . Since the Licensing Act contains no provisions relating to tort liability at all, it may reflect a preference for a regulatory over a common law system for preventing accidents in recreational areas. But we imagine that its overriding concern is safety, and so conceive the Act would be undermined if landowners subject to it continued to ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sherman v. State“"[I]f the Use Act merely confined the landowner’s liability to willful or wanton injuries, it would be codifying rather than modifying his common law liability, and that could not have been the legislators’ intent.” (Davis, 716 F.2d at 427 .)”
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.