Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 Ga. App. 46 - Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Bostick

90 Ga. App. 46 - Sharp-Boylston Co. v. Bostick’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 2019

8 state decisions

201954196019701980199020002010decided

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 46 Ga. App. 143 - Coffer v. Bradshaw · Owens v. Nichols · Kimbrough v. Boswell · 62 Ga. App. 101 - Risby v. Sharp-Boylston Company · 66 Ga. App. 132 - Hoppendietzel v. Wade

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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “An agent who has the custody of land or chattels and who should realize that there is an undue risk that their condition will cause harm to the person, land, or chattels of others is subject to liability for such harm caused, during the continuance of his custody, by his failure to use care to take such reasonable precautions as he is authorized to take. One who is in complete control over either land or chattels is under the same duty to protect others from the condition of such things as is the possessor of land or chattels. The custodian in complete charge is not excused from liability by the fact that he is acting for the benefit of another. He is subject to the same liability and has the same immunities as the possessor.”
    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.