Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 90 N.Y.2d 471 - Morgan v. State

Morgan v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
7
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Southwest Key Program, Inc. v. Gil-Perez (2002), Jacqueline Michalski v. The Home Depot Inc (2000)

21 state decisions

280199720002010decided

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.

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

  1. “[B]y engaging in a sport ... a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally ....”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[B]y engaging in a sport or recreational activity, a participant consents to those commonly appreciated risks which are inherent in and arise out of the nature of the sport generally and flow from such participation .... [Assumption of risk .... serves to define the standard of care under which a defendant’s duty is defined and circumscribed____Therefore, in assessing whether a defendant has violated a duty of care within the genre of tort-sports activities and their inherent risks, the applicable standard should include whether the conditions caused by the defendants’ negligence are “unique and created a dangerous condition over and above the usual dangers that are inherent in the sport.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the “doctrine [of assumption of risk] deserves no separate existence (except for express assumption of risk) and is simply a confusing way of stating certain no-duty rules.” (James, Assumption of Risk: Unhappy Reincarnation, 78 Yale L.J. 185 , 187-188). Accordingly, the analysis of care owed to plaintiff in the professional sporting event by a coparti-cipant and by the proprietor of the facility in which it takes place must be evaluated by considering the risks plaintiff assumed when he elected to participate in the event and how those assumed risks qualified defendants’ duty to him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.