Hanley v. State’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited
17 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Accent Store Design, Inc. v. Marathon House, Inc. · Brennan v. Kirby · Miller v. City of Dayton · Marr Scaffolding Co., Inc. v. Fairground Forms, Inc. · Webster v. Perrotta
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[A]n owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge any person to use that property for recreational purposes does not thereby: "(1) Extend any assurance that the premises are safe for any purpose; "(2) Confer upon that person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; nor "(3) Assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to any person or property caused by an act of [sic] omission of that person.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The existence of statutory immunity does not depend upon the specific activity pursued by the plaintiff at the time of the plaintiffs injury. Rather, the inquiry should focus on the nature and scope of activity for which the premises are held open to the public. The goal is to determine the character of the premises. If the premises qualify as being open to the public for recreational activity, the statute does not require a distinction to be made between plaintiffs depending upon the activity in which each was engaged at the time of the injury.” Hanley, 837 A.2d at 713 -14 (quoting Rankey, 603 N.E.2d at 1154 ).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"(a) Nothing in this chapter limits in any way any liability which, but for this chapter, otherwise exists: (1) For the willful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, structure, or activity after discovering the user's peril * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lacey v. Reitsma
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.