Gillis v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 2003
4 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 Cox v. JC Penney Co., Inc. · Wells v. Goforth · 241 Mo. App. 7 - Twine v. Norris Grain Co. · Wolfson v. Chelist · Cunningham Ex Rel. Cunningham v. Hayes
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An invitee is one who enters premises with the express or implied consent of the possessor ’and for some purpose of real benefit to the possessor or for the mutual benefit of both. A licensee is one who enters the premises with the express or implied permission of the possessor, for his own purpose, from motives of curiosity or private convenience, in no way connected with business or other relations with the owner.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“First, there was water on the floor of defendant’s porch and as a result the porch was not reasonably safe, and Second, defendant knew of this condition and knew that such condition was not reasonably safe, and Third, defendant failed to use ordinary care to warn of it, and Fourth, as a direct result of such failure, plaintiff was injured.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. Kaufmann“The instruction was based on MAI 22.-07, the verdict directing instruction required to be given in cases in which a licensee sues an owner or occupier of land, for an injury sustained as a result of a condition of the premises, modified in accordance with Cox v. J. C. Penney Co., 741 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. banc 1987).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Wilson v. Kaufmann
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.