Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 104 Ariz. 69 - McDowell v. Davis

McDowell v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 62 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Perez. v. Campbell (1971), Ontiveros v. Borak (1983)

2 federal appellate · 8 district · 62 state decisions

270196819701980199020002010decided

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 Alires v. Southern Pacific Company · Herzberg v. White · Inspiration Consolidated Copper Co. v. Conwell · Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Cornum · Brand v. JH Rose Trucking Company

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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The proximate cause of an injury is that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces an injury, and without which the injury would not have occurred.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Another test of proximate cause recognized by our law may be helpful to you: was the negligent act of the party under consideration a material element or a substantial factor in producing the injury? An act or omission cannot be a proximate cause if it contributes only slightly or possibly to the result, for a proximate cause is one which is a material element or a substantial factor in causing the injury.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “, a litigant would have little cause to complain. However, Webster also defines”
    3 later decisions 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.