Dedear v. James’s Empirical Analysis
1944
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently May 1969
7 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 Pure Oil Co. v. Crabb · Lewis v. Martin · Roddy v. Herren · Dedear v. James
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If, however, negligence had been established with respect to both or either of the grounds of recovery relied upon, still appellants could not recover, because there was no- jury finding that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision. Proximate cause was not established as a matter of law with respect to either of the alleged acts of negligence. * * * Not only were appellants required to establish, either as a matter of law or to the satisfaction of the jury, that either one or both the grounds of recovery relied upon was negligence, but were also required to show that such negligence was a proximate cause of the collision. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McLeland v. Miller
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.