Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 924 SW2D 75 - Blair v. Campbell

Blair v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
July 2016
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently July 2016

2 federal appellate · 15 state decisions

150199620002010decided

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 McIntyre v. Balentine · Eaton v. McLain · 46 Tenn. App. 539 - Shell Oil Company v. Blanks · Perez v. McConkey · 49 Tenn. App. 725 - Broome v. Parkview, Incorporated

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

  1. “[T]he law of this state, and of all others that we are aware, perceives danger as a legitimate consideration in the bargaining process, as long as the contractor has a reasonably specific idea of the perils that he or she will encounter.... Simply put, danger is often treated as one of the many factors in the pricing of an economic transaction. Furthermore, the policy of placing the risk of incurring physical harm during a repair job on a contractor holding himself or herself out as an expert in that work, as opposed to the lay premises owner, is not unjustified, at least as long as the owner does not willfully or intentionally harm the contractor.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “An exception to the general rule is recognized where the risks arise from, or are intimately connected with, defects of the premises or of machinery or appliances located thereon which the contractor has undertaken to repair. As to contracts for such repair work, it is reasoned that the contract is sufficient in itself to impart notice of a defect, the extent of which the repairman must discover for himself. This is merely to say that one assumes the risk of a known danger or of an undertaking which is inherently dangerous.”
    2 later decisions 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.