Sturdevant v. Kent’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2019
2 federal appellate · 13 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 Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Robertson · Oklahoma Power & Water Co. v. Howell
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. Regardless of any negligence on part of defendant and regardless of extent of such negligence, no liability attaches unless injuries complained of resulted directly and proximately therefrom. “2. Where the admitted facts fail to show a causal connection between the acts of negligence and the injury alleged to have resulted therefrom, the existence of proximate cause is a question of law for the trial court. “3. A motorist colliding with an automobile parked on a city street is guilty of primary negligence proximately causing the collision if he could have seen the parked automobile in time and could have avoided the collision.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the negligence complained of merely furnished a condition by which the injury was possible and a subsequent independent act caused the injury, the existence of such condition is not the proximate cause of the injury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“all reasonable men must draw the same conclusion, the question is one for the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. SAUNDERS v. SMOTHERS
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.