Griffin v. Sebek’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently August 1998 · most notably Kowal v. Hofher (1980), Felder v. Butler (1981)
28 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 Rappaport v. Nichols · Elder v. Fisher · Adamian v. Three Sons, Inc. · Hoekstra v. Helgeland · 46 Wis. 2d 724 - Garcia v. Hargrove
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“I would respectfully submit that the time has come for this court to recognize a common law cause of action by an injured party against a seller of alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person who causes injury by his intoxication. While it is true that this right of recovery was not recognized originally, there is a great difference between an intoxicated person driving a horse and buggy on a dirt road in 1889 and an intoxicated teenager hurtling down the highway at great speed in a five-thousand-pound automobile in 1972.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“At common law, and apart from statute, no redress exists against persons selling, giving, or furnishing intoxicating liquor, or their sureties, for resulting injuries or damage due to the acts of intoxicated persons, whether on the theory that the dispensing of the liquor constitutes a direct wrong or constitutes actionable negligence. In the same vein, it has been stated that there is no cause of action at common law for selling or giving away intoxicating 'liquor to one who is strong and able-bodied. The rule is based on the theory that the proximate cause of the injury is the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor and not the act of the vendor in selling it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“One thing must be constantly borne in •mind when considering these civil damage acts — the right and the remedy created by these statutes are exclusive. No right of action exists save that expressly given by the statute, and the remedy prescribed cannot be enlarged except by further legislative enactment.”
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.