Calkins v. Cox Estates’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 8 district · 157 state decisions

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

1. “In determining duty, it must be determined that the injured party was a foreseeable plaintiff — that he was within the zone of danger created by [the tortfeasor’s] actions; in other words, to whom was the duty owed? ... A duty to an individual is closely intertwined with the foreseeability of injury to that individual resulting from an activity conducted with less than reasonable care by the alleged tort-feasor.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Solon Ex Rel. Estate of Ponce v. WEK Drilling Co. · Romero v. Byers

2. “I agree with the majority in the instant case that whether a duty was owed must be decided as a matter of law using existing legal policy. The crux of the duty analysis that is required, however, is not a factual foreseeability determination, but rather it is a legal policy determination. This distinction is critical. In New Mexico, as stated in the majority opinion, we define negligence as an act foreseeably involving an unreasonable risk to that individual who complains of injury. See also SCRA 1986, 13-601. Foreseeability is most often a question of fact and only rarely, as in Palsgraf, may foreseeability be considered a false jury issue. Most often, duty as a matter of law turns not on an absence of the fact issue of foreseeability, but rather the policy issue of whether it is reasonable to impose a duty to avoid a risk of injury which, although foreseeable, is remote.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Solon Ex Rel. Estate of Ponce v. WEK Drilling Co. · Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp.

3. “Our Supreme Court has long recognized, however, that the question of duty is not merely a matter of determining whether a particular plaintiff, a particular event, and a particular injury are foreseeable. In Ramirez, for example, the Supreme Court focused on foreseeability and whether the obligation of the defendant is one to which the law will give recognition and effect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Herrera Ex Rel. Estate of Ruiz v. Quality Pontiac