Elmore v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 13 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Direct testimony is not essential to warrant a finding of excessive speed. Evidence as to the force of the impact of a collision, or as to the distance which an automobile causing an injury overshot the point of the accident before being brought to a standstill, is of significance and may be, by itself, or in connection with other circumstances, of sufficient force to warrant a jury in finding negligence as to speed, and in drawing an inference that the machine was traveling at a rate of speed such as to endanger the life or limb of persons upon the highway.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Baggett v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad

2. “In order to defeat the plaintiff's recovery his negligence must not only have contributed to his injuries, but it must have contributed thereto as a proximate cause and not as a remote cause or mere condition. 22 "The inquiry as to what is the proximate cause of the injury, like that of negligence, is always for the jury, unless the determinative facts are undisputed and are reasonably susceptible of but one inference.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sharp v. J. C. Penney Co.

3. “In order to defeat the plaintiff's recovery his negligence must not only have contributed to his injuries, but it must have contributed thereto as a proximate cause and not as a remote cause or mere condition. 22”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sharp v. J. C. Penney Co.