Phoenix Refining Co. v. Tips’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

165 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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In the Tips Case we held that the term new and independent cause means ‘the act or omission of a separate and independent agency, which destroys the causal connection between the negligent act or omission of the defendant and the injury complained of, and thereby becomes, in itself, the immediate cause of such injury.’ In such case we also held that the term proximate cause is generally defined as meaning ‘that cause which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and independent cause, produces the injury, and without which the result could not have occurred.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tarry Warehouse & Storage Co. v. Duvall · Teer v. J. Weingarten, Inc.

2. ““In view of the fact that this case must be retried, there is another matter that we deem it expedient to call attention to in order to guard against another reversal. * * * “It will be noted that this charge directly and affirmatively told the jury that in addition to the evidence they might consider matters outside the evidence ‘of common and general knowledge.’ We think this portion of the charge was error. It was on the weight of the evidence, was argumentative, and calculated to mislead the jury because they were not presumed to know what in law constituted ‘common and general knowledge.’ ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gillette Motor Transp. Co. v. Whitfield · St. Louis, B. & M. Ry. Co. v. Zamora

3. “* * * A prior or remote cause cannot be made the basis of an action for damages if it does nothing more than furnish the condition or give rise to the occasion which makes the injury possible, if such injury is the result of some other cause which reasonable minds would not have anticipated, even though the injury would not have occurred but for such condition. Panhandle & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Sledge, Tex.Civ.App., 31 S.W.2d 146, 149 ; Sledge v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co., Tex. Com.App., 45 S.W.2d 1112 . * * *”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Biggers v. Continental Bus System, Inc. · Teer v. J. Weingarten, Inc.