Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 SW2D 984 - Horton v. House

Horton v. House’s Empirical Analysis

1930

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
December 1974
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 1974 · most notably Hicks v. Brown (1941), Luther Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Walton (1956)

1 federal appellate · 26 state decisions

10019301940195019601970decided

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 Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Co. v. Washington · Colorado &. S. Ry. Co. v. Rowe · Bragg v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. · Manning v. Sherman

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

  1. ““In a matter of this sort, the plaintiff necessarily says to the defendant: T have suffered damage on account of your negligence which was the proximate cause of the injury inflicted upon me.’ Under a general denial, the defendant says: T deny the truth of your accusation,’ and where, upon a trial of the issues raised by the testimony, it is found that, while the plaintiff has suffered damage and was not guilty of negligence, yet the negligence which wa,s the sole proximate cause of the damages was that of a third party, for whose acts neither the plaintiff nor the defendant was responsible, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. In other words, where, upon investigation and finding by a jury, it is discovered that the plaintiff’s injuries would not have been inflicted, although the defendant was negligent in the transaction, but for the fact that'the sole proximate cause of the injury inflicted upon the plaintiff was the negligent act of some one for whose act the defendant was in no wise responsible, the plaintiff’s right to recover is thereby defeated. In order for the plaintiff to recover, it is always necessary to show that the defendant was responsible for the injuries inflicted.””
    1 later decision 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.