Cox v. Ekstrom’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Proximate cause of any. injury is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken' by any new and independ-. .ent cause produces injury, and. without which'the injury could not have occurred, . and from which it ought .to have been foreseen or reasonably anticipated by a person ‘in the exercise 'Of ordinary care that the injury complained o,f, or some sipailap ope, wóhld result naturally • and probably, in thie light of'attending circumstances. “You are charged that there may be more than one proximate cause. . “By the term ‘new and independent cause’ as used in the above definition of ‘proximate cause’ is meant a cause or agency over which a person has no control, and which cause or agency a person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances, would not have reasonably foreseen as acting to bring about the result complained of. “By the term ‘new and independent cause’ as used in this charge is meant a cause or agency over which a person has no control, and which cause or agency a person of ordinary prudence under the same or similar circumstances would not have reasonably foreseen as acting to bring about the result complained of.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bryant v. Banner Dairies, Inc.

2. ““Appellant contends, in his first point, that we should disregard the jury’s finding on new and independent cause and render judgment in his favor on the verdict, as the question of new and independent cause was not a controlling issue and should not have been submitted to the jury in the first place. Rule 279, R.C.P. It may be that the trial judge could properly have refused the issue in view of his definition of proximate cause but having submitted it, and having elicited a finding from the jury which is destructive of their finding of proximate cause, such finding cannot now be disregarded as immaterial and judgment rendered in favor of appellant.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dal-Pak, Inc. v. Ralph Rosen Associates, Inc.