Saucier v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably 20 Cal. 3d 578 - American Motorcycle Assn. v. Superior Court (1978), 369 So. 2d 1381 - Mississippi Power Co. v. Jones (1979)
1 federal appellate · 22 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 Mississippi City Lines, Inc. v. Bullock · EI DuPONT DE NEM. & CO. v. Ladner · Permenter v. Milner Chevrolet Co. · Mississippi Cent. R. v. Roberts · Stewart v. Kroger Gro., Etc., Co.
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although one may be negligent, yet if another, acting independently and voluntarily, puts in motion another and intervening cause which efficiently thence leads in unbroken sequence to the injury, the latter is the proximate cause and the original negligence is relegated to the position of a remote and, therefore, a non-actionable cause. Negligence which merely furnishes the condition or occasion upon which injuries are received, but does not put in motion the agency by or through which the injuries are inflicted, is not the proximate cause thereof. The question is, did the facts constitute a succession of events so linked together as to make a natural whole, or was there some new and independent cause intervening between the alleged wrong and the injury?”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“The trial court was under the duty to see that loss of time and the expense of the trial should not be nullified by the failure of the jury to put their verdict in proper form.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Assuming that Williams was negligent in allowing his vehicle to run out of fuel thereby causing its disability on the highway, that negligence was not the proximate cause of Saucier’s injury---- Saucier got into the Campbell automobile of his own accord and he knew the danger of sitting in a parked automobile on a highway just as well as the cross-appellants, who were no more responsible for Saucier’s injuries than they would be if Saucier had decided to stand in the northbound traffic lane.... The choice being entirely up to Saucier, Williams’ negligence, if any, was not the proximate cause of Saucier’s injuries.”
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.