Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 981 SW2D 151 - King v. Ryals

King v. Ryals’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
1
states following
August 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2012

4 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

60199820002010decided

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 Rustici v. Weidemeyer · Stafford v. Muster · Hughes v. Aetna Ins. Co. · Seidel v. Gordon A. Gundaker Real Estate Co. · St. John's Bank & Trust Co. v. Intag, 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Your verdict must be for [Plaintiff] if you believe: First, [Plaintiff] was a paying guest at Marriott’s hotel, and Second, Marriott either: (a) failed to protect her against unreasonable risk of physical harm by Clifford Yeargin, or (b) failed to rescue her from Clifford Yeargin’s attack after Marriott knew or had reason to know that she was being attacked, or (c) failed to adequately summons [sic] police to rescue her from Clifford Yeargin’s attack after Marriott knew or had reason to know that she was being attacked, or (d) failed to promptly apprehend Clifford Yeargin after the attack; and Third, in any one or more of the respects submitted in paragraph Second, Marriott was negligent, and Fourth, such negligence directly caused, or directly contributed to cause plaintiff damage.”
    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.