Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 954 FSUPP 1459 - Sofford v. Schindler Elevator Corp.

Sofford v. Schindler Elevator Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

1997

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

7 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2017

7 district · 6 state decisions

80199720002010decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Gasperini v. Center for Humanities, Inc. · Martin v. Nannie and the Newborns 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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “an invitee may recover for damages caused by the landowner's unreasonable failure to exercise reasonable care to protect against dangers of which he actually knew or should have known.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 , 158 n. 17, 90 S.Ct. 1598 , 1608 n. 17, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970), the Supreme Court observed that an unsworn statement submitted in support of a motion for summary judgment did not meet the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e). Other courts have followed Adickes and declined to consider unsworn expert reports ... submitted in the summary judgment context.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “imposed upon the landowner. See also Sofford v. Schindler Elevator Corp., 954 F.Supp. 1459, 1461 (D.Colo.1997) ([Thhe statute establishes two separate elements for landowner liability [to invitees]: (1) breach of a duty to use reasonable care to protect against a danger on the property, and (2) actual or constructive knowledge of the danger.”
    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.