MacNeil v. Perkins’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 12 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 141 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Grant v. Arizona Public Service Co. (1982), 1 Ariz. App. 395 - Welker v. Kennecott Copper Company (1965)
7 federal appellate · 12 district · 116 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 Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Compton · Downs v. Sulphur Springs Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. · Giannini v. Campodonico · 118 Cal. App. 2d 830 - Marino v. Valenti · Buckeye Irrigation Co. v. Askren
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 141 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (c) the children because of their youth do not discover the condition or realize the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““§ 413. Duty to Provide for the Taking of Precautions Against Dangerous Conditions involved in Work Entrusted to Contractor. “One who employs an independent contractor to do work which the employer should recognize as necessarily creating, during its progress, conditions containing an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by the absence of such precautions, if the employer (a) fails to provide in the contract that the contractor shall take such precautions (as to which see § 416), or (b) fails to exercise reasonable care to provide in some other manner for the taking of such precautions.” “§ 414. Negligence in Exercising Control Retained by Employer. “One who entrusts work to an independent contractor, but who retains the ' control of any part of the work, is subject to liability for bodily harm to others, for whose safety the employer owes a duty to exercise reasonable care, which is caused by his failure to exercise his control with reasonable care.” “§ 416. Work Dangerous in Absence of Special Precautions. “One who employs an independent contractor to do work, which the employer should recognize as necessarily requiring the creation during its progress of a condition involving a pe culiar risk of bodily harm to others unless special precautions are taken, is subject to liability for bodily harm caused to them by the failure of the contractor to exercise reasonable care to take”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Donnie Rayford Tate, Jr. Chea Tate v. Harold M. Cole First State Service Corporation, an Arizona Corporation Sierra Vista Land and Development Company, a Joint Venture Dom Construction Company, a Sole Proprietorship Dominic Troncale, Donnie Rayford Tate, Jr. Chea Tate v. Harold M. Cole First State Service Corporation, an Arizona Corporation Sierra Vista Land and Development Company, a Joint Venture Dom Construction Company, a Sole Proprietorship Dominic Troncale Pate Contractors, Inc., an Arizona Corporation Herman Pate City of Sierra Vista, Arizona · 101 Wis. 2d 25 - Christians Ex Rel. Davis v. Homestake Enterprises, Ltd.““§ 339. Artificial Conditions, Highly Dangerous to Trespassing Children “A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm to children trespassing thereon caused by an artificial condition upon the land if (a) the place where the condition exists is one upon which the possessor knows or has reason to know that children are likely to trespass, and (b) the condition is one of which the possessor knows or has reason to know and which he realizes or should realize will involve an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily harm to such children, and (c) the children because of their youth do riot discover the condition or realize 'the risk involved in intermeddling with it or in coming within the area made dangerous by it, and (d) the utility to the possessor of maintaining the condition and the burden of eliminating the danger are slight as compared with the risk to children involved, and (e) the possessor fails to exercise reasonable care- to eliminate the danger or otherwise to protect the children.””
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.