Lancaster v. Montesi’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 federal appellate · 4 district · 69 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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘[t]he question whether damage in a given case is proximate or remote is one of great importance. It is a question of substantive law, and the determination of it determines [a] legal right. It is unfortunate that no definite principle can be laid down by which to determine this question. It is always to be determined on the facts of each case upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, justice, policy, and precedent.' ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Board of Education of Memphis City Schools v. Dow Chemical Company · Glenn v. Conner

2. “In an action for wrongful death, where the intervening cause relied on takes the form of suicide, then the cases both in this jurisdiction and elsewhere have generally held there to be no liability. It is only when the deceased was insane or in a frenzy at the time of death, as a result of the negligence, that some courts have been willing to hold that the proximate cause of the death was the defendant's wrongful act. Dean Prosser, in his discussion of Intervening Causes, sec. 49 of Prosser on Torts (1955), has this to say pertinent to our consideration of the problem: 'Some difficulty has arisen in cases where the injured person becomes insane and commits suicide. Although there are cases to the contrary, it seems the better view that when his insanity prevents him from realizing the nature of his act or controlling his conduct, his suicide is to be regarded either as a direct result and no intervening force at all, or as a normal incident of the risk, for which the defendant will be liable. The situation is the same as if he should hurt himself during unconsciousness or delirium brought on by the injury. But if the suicide is during a lucid interval, when he is in full command of his faculties but his life has become unendurable to him, it is agreed that his voluntary choice is an abnormal thing, which supersedes the defendant's liability.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cotten v. Wilson

3. ““One’s first inquiry, in analyzing a situation such as is before us, is whether the alleged acts of defendant were a cause in fact of the injury. ‘If that inquiry shows that defendant’s conduct, in point of fact was not a factor in causing plaintiff’s damage, that ends the matter. But if it shows his conduct was a factor in causing plaintiff’s damage, then the further question is whether his conduct played such a part in causing the damage as makes him in the eye of the law the author of such damage and liable therefor.’ Carney v. Goodman, 38 Tenn.App. 55, 61 , 270 S.W.2d 572, 575 (1954).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tennessee Trailways, Inc. v. Ervin