Clark v. Waggoner’s Empirical Analysis
1970
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 79 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 100 later decisions — most recently January 2015 · most notably County of Cameron v. Brown (2002), Farley v. MM Cattle Company (1975)
10 federal appellate · 79 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 Biggers v. Continental Bus System, Inc. · Hopson v. Gulf Oil Corp. · Baumler v. Hazelwood · Texas & New Orleans Railroad v. Burden · Gonzales v. City of Galveston
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 100 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“element of proximate cause to be whether Johnson, as a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence, should have anticipated the danger to others created by his operation of the truck at the speed he was traveling at the time and place in question. Granted that the rule of foreseeability does not require that he anticipate just how the injuries might grow out of his conduct, nevertheless the test is”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““The foreseeability element of proximate cause is established by proof that the actor as a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence should have anticipated the danger to others created by his negligent act, and the rule does not require that he anticipate just how injuries will grow out of that dangerous situation . The test is not what the wrongdoer believed would occur; it is whether he ought reasonably to have foreseen that the event in question, or some similar event, would occur . . . ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The act of a third person which intervenes and contributes a condition necessary to the injurious effect of the original negligence will not excuse the first wrongdoer if such act ought to have been foreseen.... An act wanting in ordinary care which actively aids in producing an injury as a direct and existing cause need not be the sole cause; but it must be a concurring cause and such as might reasonably have been contemplated as involving the result under the attending circumstances.”
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.