Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 SO2D 488 - Strough v. State

Strough v. State’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
2
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently October 2017

24 state decisions

801986199020002010decided

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 Alabama Power Company v. Taylor · Birmingham Amusement Co. v. Norris · 435 So. 2d 705 - Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Services, Inc. · Foodtown Stores, Inc. v. Patterson · 336 So. 2d 1338 - Vines v. Plantation Motor Lodge

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

  1. “'The proximate cause of an injury is the primary moving cause without which it would not have occurred, but which, in the natural and probable sequence of events, produces the injury.' City of Mobile v. Havard , 289 Ala. 532 , 538, 268 So.2d 805 (Ala. 1972) ; see also, Vines v. Plantation Motor Lodge , 336 So.2d 1338 (Ala. 1976). As our Supreme Court observed in Alabama Power Company v. Taylor , 293 Ala. 484 , 306 So.2d 236 (1975), foreseeability is the cornerstone of proximate cause. This does not mean, however, that the defendant must have actually foreseen the particular injury which resulted from his action. Rather, the injury sustained by the victim must have been of such a nature that a reasonable person could have foreseen or anticipated that the injury might occur as a natural consequence of the action. Williams v. Woodman , 424 So.2d 611 (Ala. 1982) ; Prescott v. Martin , 331 So.2d 240 (Ala. 1976). Where an injury is caused by intentional conduct, the rules of proximate cause are more liberally applied. Phillips v. Smalley Maintenance Services, Inc. , 435 So.2d 705 (Ala. 1983).”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"[I]t is essential to be fair and impartial in the administration of justice, that all perpetrators of criminal activity or conduct be required to fully compensate all victims of such conduct or activity for any pecuniary loss, damage or injury as a direct or indirect result thereof. "”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[b]efore a defendant can be held liable for damages, it must be established that his criminal act was the proximate cause of the injury sustained”
    3 later decisions 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.