Smith v. Carlson’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 1995
11 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 Purcell v. St. Paul City Ry. Co. · Geisen v. Luce · Lee v. Donnelly · Kardasinski v. Koford · Wilson v. Northern Pacific Railroad
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n act done in normal response to the stimulus of the situation created by the actor’s negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury and not an independent intervening cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kunza v. Pantze“was caused not by any force applied by defendant to the plaintiff, but solely by the latter’s act in the emergency of jumping to avoid injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kunza v. Pantze“should be determined by them in the exercise of practical common sense rather than by the application of abstract principles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kunza v. Pantze
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.