Lefmark Management Co. v. Old’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain (1998), Del Lago Partners, Inc. v. Smith (2010)
2 federal appellate · 57 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston))
Relationships
Relies on Nixon v. Mr. Property Management Co. · 6 Cal. 4th 666 - Ann M. v. Pacific Plaza Shopping Center · El Chico Corp. v. Poole · 38 Cal. 3d 112 - Isaacs v. Huntington Memorial Hospital · Doe v. Boys Clubs of Greater Dallas, Inc.
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a condition of the premises created an unreasonable risk of harm to the invitee; (2) the owner knew or reasonably should have known of the condition; (3) the owner failed to exercise ordinary care to protect the invitee from danger; (4) the owner’s failure was a proximate cause of injury to the invitee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(a) the vendee does not know or have reason to know of the condition or the risk involved, and (b) the vendor knows or has reason to know of the condition, and realizes or should realize the risk involved, and has reason to believe that the vendee will not discover the condition or realize the risk.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Durham v. Zarcades“[o]ne who controls [a] premises ... [has] a duty to use ordinary care to protect invitees from criminal acts of third parties if he knows or has reason to know of an unreasonable and foreseeable risk of harm to the invitee.”
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.