149 Ind. App. 93 - Stauffer, Admx. v. Ely’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently May 1995
20 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 Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Clark · Taylor v. Fitzpatrick · Perry v. Goss · Davison v. Williams · White v. Evansville American Legion Home Association
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The proximate cause of an injury is the efficient cause, the one that necessarily sets the other causes in operation. (Citation omitted). The mere intervention, however, of an independent negligent act, as in this case, will not in and of itself relieve the original negligent actor of legal responsibility. (Citations omitted). Under Indiana law an intervening negligent act breaks the chain of liability only if that intervention could not have been reasonably foreseen by the original negligent actor. (Citation omitted). In short, reasonable foreseeability is still the fundamental test of proximate cause, and this rule is not changed by the existence of an intervening act or agency.” (Citation omitted).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A mandatory instruction is defined by Judge Arterburn in Perry v. Goss (1970), 253 Ind. 603 , 255 N. E. 2d 923 , as one which attempts ‘to set up a factual situation directing the jury to a certain result * * *.’ He also says in this opinion that ‘although mandatory instruc tions are not necessarily bad, we look with disfavor upon their use because of the risk involved in making a statement of the evidentiary facts under which the law would mandate a certain result.’ (Citation omitted). $ $ $ $ “Furthermore, it is not necessary that an instruction contain the words ‘you shall return a verdict’ in order for it to be mandatory under the law of this state. If the practical result of the language used is the same, then the instruction is mandatory in nature.””
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.