Underwood v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently November 1982
2 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 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 Daniels v. New York, New Haven, & Hartford Railroad · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Jones · City of Bessemer v. Clowdus · O'Quinn v. Alston · Wagner v. . Mittendorf
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Proximate cause - ‘is a mixed question of law and fact for' the jury’ 65 C.J.S., Negligence, § 264, pages 1183-1185. It ‘is not a question of science or of legal knowledge, but is to be determined as a fact in view' of the circumstances, and from a con-' sideration of all the attending facts and circumstances, and in the exercise of practical common sense rather than by the application of abstract definitions.’ 65 C.J.S. Negligence, § 264, page 1187, notes 81-83. It is a juridical question, not one of expert knowledge. It involves many factors not of an expert nature, some are legal and some factual. * * * ” Underwood v. Smith, 261 Ala. 181, 189, 190 , 73 So.2d 717, 725 .”
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.