Sanders v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably Tovrea Land and Cattle Company v. Linsenmeyer (1966), Shannon v. Butler Homes, Inc. (1967)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 61 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 Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation District Number One v. Southwest Cotton Co. · Comeau v. Comeau · Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Sakrison · Moore v. Southwestern Sash & Door Co. · Industrial Commission of Arizona v. J. & J. CONST. CO.
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Thus all of the decisions are agreed that a social guest, however cordially he may have been invited and urged to come, is not in law an invitee, but is nothing more than a licensee, to whom the possessor owes no duty of inspection and affirmative care to make the premises safe for his visit. The reason usually given is that the guest understands when he comes that he is to be placed on the same footing as one of the family, and must take the premises as the occupier himself uses them, without any preparation for his safety; and that he understands that he must assume the risk of defective conditions unknown to the occupier, and is entitled at most to a warning of dangers that are known. There has been some undercurrent of dissent, as to whether this is really in accord with present social customs, and some writers have urged that the guest be treated as an invitee, but thus far the courts have not been induced to change their posi-. tion.” Prosser on Torts, pp. 447-448. Arizona is committed to the same rule. “Having concluded the plaintiff was a guest and not an invitee, our next problem is to determine what duty the defendant owed to him. The rule seems to be settled on this point that the owners of the premises owe no duty to the guest other than to refrain from knowingly letting him run upon a hidden peril or wantonly or wilfully causing him harm. * * * ‘ * * * However, the rule is that a host who knows of a concealed danger upon the premises is guilty of negligence if h”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“not bound by the conclusions of the trial court, but are at liberty to draw our own legal conclusions from the admitted facts.”
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.