Mitchell v. Branch’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 66 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Knodle v. Waikiki Gateway Hotel, Inc. (1987), Ono v. Applegate (1980)
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 66 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 Kline v. Moyer and Albert · Northern Indiana Transit, Inc. v. Burk · 1 Utah 2d 143 - Hillyard v. Utah By-Products Co. · Medved v. Doolittle · Herzberg v. White
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) [the actor’s] conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, and (b) there is no rule of law relieving the actor from liability because of the manner in which his [or her] negligence has resulted in the harm.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * * It is a rare case where the court may hold, as a matter of law, that the intervening act breaks the chain of causation because whether it was reasonably foreseeable is a question of fact and not of law. The second act will break the chain of causation only where, under no rational interpretation of the evidence, could the later act of negligence have been reasonably foreseen.” Jones v. City of South San Francisco, 96 Cal. App. 2d 427, 435 , 216 P.2d 25, 30 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“To impose liability on a negligent party for an injury to another, there must be a causal connection between the negligent act and the injury. The mere coexistence of negligence and injury or the existence of negligence prior to the injury is not in itself sufficient to establish this necessary causal relationship. The injury must be the result of, or flow from the negligent act before the negligent party is liable, (citations omitted)”
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.