Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 SW3D 85 - Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons

Pathways, Inc. v. Hammons’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Martin v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (2009), Kentucky River Medical Center v. McIntosh (2010)

1 federal appellate · 29 state decisions

440200320102020decided

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 Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co. · Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc. · United States v. Carroll Towing Co. · Lewis v. B & R CORPORATION · Deutsch v. Shein

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

  1. “[t]he actor is required to recognize that his conduct involves a risk of causing an invasion of another's interest if a reasonable man would do so while exercising such attention, perception of the circumstances, memory, knowledge of other pertinent matters, intelligence, and judgment as a reasonable man would have.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'Consequent injury' consists of what hornbooks separate into two distinct elements: actual injury or harm to the plaintiff and legal causation between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's injury.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In order to be a legal cause of another’s harm, it is not enough that the harm would not have occurred had the actor not been negligent. (T)his is necessary, but it is not of itself sufficient. The negligence must also be a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiffs harm. The word ‘substantial’ is used to denote the fact that the defendant’s conduct has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause, using that word in the popular sense, in which there always lurks the idea of responsibility, rather than in the so-called ‘philosophic sense,’ which includes every one of the great number of events without which any happening would not have occurred. Each of these events is a cause in the so-called ‘philosophic sense,’ yet the effect of many of them is so insignificant that no ordinary mind would think of them as causes.””
    2 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.