Davey v. Hedden’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
14 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently March 2016 · most notably Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1998), Williamson v. City of Hays (2003)
14 district · 24 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 Todd v. Kelly · Durflinger v. Artiles · Martindale v. Tenny · Nero v. Kansas State University · Mitzner Ex Rel. Bishop v. State, Kansas Department of Social & Rehabilitation Services
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Whether negligent conduct of the original wrongdoer is to be insulated as a matter of law by the intervening negligent act of another is determined by the test of foreseeability. If the original actor should have reasonably foreseen and anticipated the intervening act causing injury in the light of the attendant circumstances, his act of negligence would be a proximate cause of the injury. Foreseeability of some injury from an act or omission is a prerequisite to its being a proximate cause of the injury for which recovery is sought. When negligence appears merely to have brought about a condition of affairs or a situation in which another and entirely independent and efficient agency intervenes 'to cause the injury, the latter is deemed the direct and proximate cause and the former only the indirect or remote cause.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whether conduct in a given case is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injuries is normally a question of fact for a jury. However, where the facts are such that they are susceptible to only one inference, the question is one of law and may be disposed of by the court when the plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary burden of proof.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred, the injury being the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.