State v. William’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘In criminal cases prosecuted under the motor vehicle homicide act, the negligence or unlawful acts of another driver which proximately contributed to the death, as distinguished from an independent intervening cause thereof, [are] not a defense if the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s negligence or unlawful acts were also a proximate cause of the death of another.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ring · State v. Ruyle

2. “Proximate cause has been defined by this court as “a moving or effective cause or fault which, in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the death and without which the death would not have occurred.” State v. Sommers, 201 Neb. 809, 811-12 , 272 N.W.2d 367, 369 (1978). ‘“It is the efficient cause, the one that necessarily sets in operation the factors that accomplish the death ....’” State v. Lytle, 194 Neb. 353, 358 , 231 N.W.2d 681, 685 (1975); State v. Harris, 194 Neb. 74 , 230 N.W.2d 203 (1975).”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 13 Neb. Ct. App. 38 - State v. Muro · State v. Ruyle

3. “Regardless of whether the officer violated police policy or was negligent in his decision to pursue the defendant at high speeds, the defendant’s actions were still a proximate cause of the death. The defendant’s flight from the officer, his high rate of speed, and his failure to stop at the final stop sign all made up “ ‘the cause without which the death would not have occurred....’” State v. Dixon, 222 Neb. 787, 797 , 387 N.W.2d 682, 688 (1986). Under these facts, the officer’s actions, even if incorrect, did not serve to negate the conclusion that it was the defendant’s conduct which was “ ‘the efficient cause, the one that necessarily [set] in operation the factors that accomplish [ed] the death. . . .’ ” State v. Lytle, 194 Neb. 353, 358 , 231 N.W.2d 681, 685 (1975). “The fact that some other agency combined with the act of the defendant to cause the death is not a defense unless the other agency is an efficient intervening cause.” State v. Meints, 212 Neb. 410, 414 , 322 N.W.2d 809, 812 (1982).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Ring