Atherton v. Devine’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2011 · most notably Carmichael v. Beller (1996), Blanke v. Alexander (1998)
4 federal appellate · 17 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 LundBerg v. Bannan · Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Courtney · Ford Motor Co. v. Alexander Park · Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. of Tulsa, Okl. v. Von Brady · Emmett W. Pryor and Pacific Employers Insurance Company v. Lee C. Moore, Corporation
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Foreseeability is an essential element of proximate cause ... and it is the standard by which the proximate cause, as distinguished from the existence of a mere condition, is to be tested.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“Causation traditionally lies in the realm of fact, not law. In an action for injuries caused by the defendant’s negligence, it is a jury question whether the injurious consequences resulting from the negligence could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated. Likewise, where the evidence is conflicting or where reasonable men might draw different conclusions, the question of reasonable foreseeability of an intervening act or agency causing subsequent injury is to be determined by the jury. Foreseeableness becomes a question of law for the court only when one reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the facts, (footnotes omitted)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the negligent actor is liable for another’s bodily injury, he is also subject to liability for any additional bodily harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons in rendering aid which the other’s injury reasonably requires, irrespective of whether such acts are done in a proper or negligent manner.”
2 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.