Aggregate Limestone Co. v. Robison’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2006 · most notably 482 So. 2d 1176 - General Motors Corp. v. Edwards (1985), Ex Parte Huguley Water System (1968)
4 federal appellate · 35 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 Morgan Hill Paving Co. v. Fonville · City Delivery Co. v. Henry · Mobile City Lines, Inc. v. Proctor · Godfrey v. Vinson · Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Turnipseed
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The plain meaning of this is that where proof that an agent committed an intentional, wanton, or negligent act while in the line and scope of his employment, liability for such act would be imputed to the principal, regardless of the actual participation of the principal in the intentional, wanton or negl'gent act or omission under the doctrine of respondeat superior. * * * ” ( 276 Ala. at page 342 , 161 So.2d at page 824 )”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“"In any civil action, it shall be permissible to allege in any pleading that any party or parties committed an act, and proof that any such party or parties committed such act by or through an agent, servant, or employee acting within the line and scope of his employment shall be sufficient proof of such allegation. . . . "”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The fact that the injury “results” from the negligence is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of negligence law. The injury has to “proximately result” from the negligence act or omission. The word “proximate” adds that requirement of unbroken causation to the other requirements necessary for actionable negligence. Proximate cause involves consideration of active force, or result of active force on passive force, or of several active forces on each other. * * * “Proximate” means next in relation to cause and effect, and, together with the word “remote”, is used to distinguish between actionable and non-actionable' negligence. * * * “Proximate cause” is not necessarily the act nearest injury, but is an act which actively aided in producing injury as a direct and existing cause. 161 So.2d at 822 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.