Lemos v. Madden’s Empirical Analysis
1921
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 87 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently September 2019 · most notably O'Malley v. Eagan (1931), Loney v. Laramie Auto Co. (1927)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 87 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 Insurance Company v. Boon · Insurance Company v. Tweed · Stone v. Boston & Albany Railroad · St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance · Seale. v. Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe R'y Co.
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘The question of proximate cause is one frequently so near the border line as to cause much perplexity, but, generally speaking,- it may be said in this state that the proximate is the producing cause, not the one supplying the condition, but the one producing the injury. The one supplying the condition may be intrinsically careless as to amount practically to a continuing invitation, so to speak, for a direct cause to join in producing the disastrous result. But to be such it must present a condition of danger so manifest that the one responsible must be held to have been negligent in furnishing the means for probable injury. But a condition which could not reasonably be expected to endanger, and which but for some independent cause without which the injury would not have occurred would not have endangered, does not ordinarily amount to a proximate cause.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * If an injury might reasonably be anticipated from the original negligent act or omission, notwithstanding the intervention of an independent agency, the act of such independent agency will not constitute a defense, for it will not be regarded as cutting off the line of causation, and the party guilty of the original act or omission will be held responsible. ⅜ ⅝ ⅝ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““But if the original wrong furnished only the condition or occasion, then it is the remote and not the proximate cause, notwithstanding the fact that there would have been no loss or injury but for such condition or occasion.””
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.