Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 622 SO2D 322 - Smitherman v. McCafferty

Smitherman v. McCafferty’s Empirical Analysis

1993

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently January 2019

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

60199320002010decided

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 33 Cal. 3d 572 - People v. Fosselman · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Paul · Hardie-Tynes Mfg. Co. v. Cruise · Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. Callahan · 512 So. 2d 1317 - Pugh v. Butler Telephone Co., Inc.

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

  1. “"In general, 'every person owes every other person a duty imposed by law to be careful not to hurt him.' In determining whether a duty exists in a given situation, however, courts should consider a number of factors, including public policy, social considerations, and foreseeability. The key factor is whether the injury was foreseeable by the defendant. The essential question is 'whether the plaintiff's interests *Page 1369 are entitled to legal protection against the defendant's conduct.' "”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he key factor [in establishing a duty] is whether the injury was foreseeable by the defendant,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[w]ith regard to the four counts seeking civil liability for the criminal acts allegedly committed by Mike and Brad, [plaintiffs] rely upon an early case in which this Court said that “every criminal act which injures the person or property of another is also a civil tort, re-dressable by the courts.” Hardie-Tynes Manufacturing Co. v. Cruse, 189 Ala. 66 , 78 66 So. 657, 661 (1914). The rule can be more properly stated as follows: Even though an act may constitute a crime, if it also results in injury to the person or property of another, the act may still be the basis of a civil action for damages. However, civil liability will ensue only if the acts complained of violate the legal rights of the plaintiff, constitute a breach of duty owed to the plaintiff, or constitute some cause of action for which relief may be granted.”
    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.