Dunbar v. Olivieri’s Empirical Analysis
1935
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich (1971), 51 Cal. 2d 448 - Courtell v. McEachen (1959)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 33 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 Phillips v. Denver City Tramway Co. · Denver & Rio Grande Railroad v. Ryan · Campion v. Eakle · City of Greeley v. Hamman · Hayko v. Colorado & Utah Coal Co.
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It will not do to say that every attractive thing is sufficient to charge a defendant with negligence in enticing children to trespass, because there is nothing that can be said not to be attractive to a child. . . . While he owes a duty to one invited, and some attractive agencies may amount to an invitation to a child, yet such an agency must invite to trespass and not merely after trespass, and must be an unusual thing, unusually, extraordinarily attractive. . . .’ ” (Dunbar v. Olivieri, supra at 386.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . [I]t is obvious that in the present case, under the evidence before us, the injured boy was not attracted by anything heretofore deemed by this court to be such a nuisance. Neither his own testimony nor any other in the record brings the case at bar within the attractive-nuisance principle. The rubbish-burning device was on the defendant’s premises. . . .””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"A statute or ordinance may, because of its title, preamble, history or otherwise, be construed as intended to protect only the interests of a particular class of individuals. If so, a violation of the enactment can make the actor liable only to a person of that class."”
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.