Otts v. Brough’s Empirical Analysis
1965
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Mann v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1974), Petricevich v. Salmon River Canal Company (1969)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 37 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 Merrill v. Duffy Reed Construction Co. · 15 Cal. 2d 622 - Dingman v. AF Mattock Company · Wills v. JJ Newberry Co. · Hooton v. City of Burley · Shelton v. Southern Railway Co.
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the duty to keep the premises safe for an invitee extends to all portions of the premises which it is necessary and convenient for the invitee to visit or use in pursuing the course of business for which the invitation was extended and at which his presence should reasonably be anticipated or to which he is allowed to go. [Citing Feeny v. Hanson, 84 Idaho 236 , 371 P.2d 15 (1962)] 84 Idaho at 240 , 371 P.2d at 17 . Such duty, however, only requires the exercise of ordinary care, and does not extend to dangers which are known to the invitee, or which are, or by exercise of ordinary care, should have been observed by the invitee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Harrison v. Taylor“"[w]hile such evidence [of barricading] could not be introduced for the purpose of showing antecedent negligence on the part of respondent Brough, as the one in charge of the area for the purpose of the work there carried on, nevertheless it was material as bearing upon respondent's recognition of a defect which he was duty bound to remedy." Otts, supra at 135 , 409 P.2d at 101 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Leliefeld v. Johnson“[t]he duty to keep the premises safe for an invitee only requires the exercise of ordinary care, and does not extend to dangerous conditions which are known to the invitee, or which are or by the exercise of ordinary care should have been observed by the invitee.”
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.