Cudney v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• applying “the general rule in Michigan” ... that a premises owner has “no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers”
• applying “the general rule in Michigan . . . that a premises owner has “no duty to warn of open and obvious dangers”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Suriano v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
  Court of Appeals of Washington· 2003-07-17· cited 6×
• Wisdom v. TJX Companies, Inc.
  D. Vermont· 2006-01-19· cited 5×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
• Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of Catrett
  Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
• Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
  Supreme Court· 1938-04-25· cited 18,491×
• Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & Company
  Sixth Circuit· 1990-05-25· cited 2,773×
• Gutierrez v. Lynch
  Sixth Circuit· 1987-08-25· cited 1,105×
• Riddle v. McLouth Steel Products Corp.
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1992-06-23· cited 327×
• Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc.
  Michigan Supreme Court· 1995-08-15· cited 276×
• Barbara J. Reid v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
  Sixth Circuit· 1978-05-05· cited 17×