David Berkeley v. Pueblo Supermarket of St Thomas Pueblo Supermarkets of St Thomas Inc’s Empirical Analysis
740 F.2d 230 · 1984
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Downing (1985), Saldana v. Kmart Corp. (2001)
17 federal appellate · 18 district · 7 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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Murray v. Fairbanks Morse · Stephen Edynak v. Atlantic Shipping Inc. Cie. Chambon MacLovia S. A. v. Allied Chemical Company, Atlantic Shipping, Inc. · John McShain Inc. v. Cessna Aircraft Company v. Wings, Inc. And Butler Aviation-Friendship, Inc., Third Party v. Summit Aviation, 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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] statement relating to a startling event or condition made while the declarant was under the stress of excitement caused by the event or condition.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition, and should realize that it involves an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against the danger.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) Was there a foreign substance on the floor? (2) What notice, either actual or constructive, did the employees or the management have of this particular condition which involves “an unreasonable risk of harm” to the business invitees? (3) Absent direct testimony proving actual notice, was the foreign substance on the floor long enough to give management or employees constructive notice of this potential “unreasonable risk of harm”?”
3 later decisions 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.