Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 SW2D 759 - Ford v. Monroe

Ford v. Monroe’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
6
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership (1996), Virginia D. v. Madesco Investment Corp. (1983)

1 federal appellate · 30 state decisions

180197719801990200020102020decided

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 Mazon v. Farmers Insurance Exchange · Ward v. Allstate Insurance Company · Sira v. Wabash Railroad · Hay v. Ham · Fraser v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.

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

  1. “arising out of the ... use of such uninsured automobile.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““The act of a third person in committing an intentional tort or crime is a superseding cause of harm to another resulting therefrom, although the actor’s negligent conduct created a situation which afforded an opportunity to the third person to commit such a tort or crime, unless the actor at the time of his negligent conduct realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““[I]t is a general principle that if a criminal act by a third person intervenes and produces plaintiff’s injury which was not intended by defendant and could not have reasonably been foreseen by him, the causal chain between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injury is broken.””
    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.