Stone v. Bethea’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The general rule of law is that when, between [an act] and the occurrence of an injury, there intervenes a willful, malicious, and criminal act of a third person producing the injury, but that such was not intended by the [original actor] and could not have been foreseen by him, the causal chain between the [original act] and the accident is broken.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mellen v. Lane · Wright v. PRG Real Estate Mgmt., Inc.

2. ““It is our conclusion that under the evidence in this case that the intervening independent act of negligence and willfulness on the part of the thief who stole-the respondent’s [defendant’s] automobile was the sole, proximate and efficient cause of the injury to the appellant [plaintiff] and such could not have been foreseen by the respondent under the attendant circumstances and was not a proximate cause resulting from any act of negligence on the part of the-respondent.” (p. 164.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. George v. Breising

3. “While it is not necessary that the actor must have contemplated or could have anticipated the particular event which occurred ... liability cannot rest on mere possibilities. The actor cannot be charged with “that which is unpredictable or that which could not be expected to happen.” In determining whether a consequence is one that is natural and probable, the actor’s conduct must be viewed “in the light of the attendant circumstances.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Humphrey v. Day & Zimmerman International, Inc.