Jacobson v. Suderman & Young, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
17 F.2d 253 · 1927
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2008
6 federal appellate ·
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 Atchison Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company v. Samuel Calhoun · Insurance Company v. Tweed · Bowen v. Smith-Hall Grocery Co. · Fox v. Boston & Maine Railroad · Export Coal Co. v. Keyser
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The view that where a natural force or act of God unites with human negligence in causing injury, the negligence of the human agent is regarded as a condition', and not as a cause of the injury, is disapproved generally. The general rule is that when the negligence of a person concurs with an ordinary * * * natural force, or with a so-called act of God, in producing an injury, the party guilty of such negligence will be held liable for the injurious consequence, if the injury would not have happened except for his failure to exercise care. Reducing the principle to a maxim, ‘he whose negligence joins with the act of God in producing injury is liable therefor.’ ” 38 Am.Jur., page 719, paragraph 65. “An act of God is an unusual, extraordinary, sudden and unexpected manifestation of the forces of nature which" man cannot resist. The fact that no human agency can resist an act of God renders misfortune occasioned solely thereby a loss by inevitable accident which must be borne by the one upon whom it falls. On the other hand, when an act of God combines or concurs with the negligence of the defendant to produce an injury, the defendant is liable if the injury would not have resulted but for his own negligent conduct or omission.” 38 Am.Jur., page 649, paragraph 7. “If the misconduct is of a character which, according to the usual experience of mankind, is calculated to afford an opportunity for the intervention of some subsequent cause, the subsequent mischief may be held to be ”
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.