115 Ind. App. 210 - Button v. Pennsylvania Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 1983
16 state decisions
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 110 Ind. App. 633 - Tabor v. Continental Baking Company · Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Co. v. Locke · Swanson v. Slagal, Administratrix · Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad v. Slaughter · 109 Ind. App. 693 - Pitcairn v. Whiteside
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . The practical import of the doctrine of last clear chance is that a negligent defendant is held liable to a negligent plaintiff, if the defendant, aware of the plaintiff’s peril, had in fact a later opportunity than the plaintiff to avoid the injury. “. . . It is obvious that the doctrine of last clear chance has no place in a controversy in which (1) the plaintiff was not negligent, and (2) the defendant had no actual knowledge of the plaintiff’s peril.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . It all resolves itself down to the fundamental doctrine that one is entitled to the reasonable use of his property even if such use incidentally injures another, but liability for the injury arises when such injury is caused by the unreasonable use of such property in a manner the user should have reasonably anticipated would result in damage to another.” (Our emphasis.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““. . . That foreseeability is an essential element of proximate cause and that no liability exists for an injury that could not reasonably have been anticipated as the proximate result of one’s conduct, is no longer a matter of debate in Indiana.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.