Commonwealth v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1942
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 210 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 265 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably O'Brien v. Lanpar Company (1966), Gearhart Industries, Inc. v. Smith International, Inc. (1984)
24 federal appellate · 2 district · 210 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 Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · Cleveland v. Ward · Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Bigham · International & Great Northern Railway Co. v. Anderson · Freeman v. McAninch
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 265 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Such action must be brought by the corporation, not alone to avoid a multiplicity of suits by the various stockholders and to bar a subsequent suit by the corporation, but in order that the damages so recovered may be available for the payment of the corporations’ creditors, and for proportional distribution to the stockholders as dividends, or for such other purposes as the directors may lawfully determine. [Citing many authorities.] ””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * ru|e t,ejng that the judgment is conclusive on every other matter on which the parties might have litigated and had decided as incident to or essentially connected with the subject matter of the litigation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Foreseeableness or anticipation of injury is an essential element of proximate cause. The injury complained of must be the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act — that is, it must be of such nature as would reasonably have been anticipated under the circumstances by a person of ordinary prudence. It is not necessary that it appear that the wrongdoer actually foresaw the precise course of the consequences of his wrongful act, but it must appear that he could or should reasonably have anticipated or foreseen that the injury complained of, or one of the same general character, would probably result from his wrongful act. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis, 140 Tex. 398 , 168 S.W.2d 216, 222 (1942), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 210 , 63 S.Ct. 1447 , 87 L.Ed. 1848 (1943).”
1 later decision 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.