Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 666 P2D 408 - McClellan v. Tottenhoff

McClellan v. Tottenhoff’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
15
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably El Chico Corp. v. Poole (1987), Ling v. Jan's Liquors (1985)

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 15 states

3101983199020002010decided

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 Rappaport v. Nichols · Elder v. Fisher · Lopez Ex Rel. Lopez v. Maez · Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc. · Adamian v. Three Sons, 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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"A defendant is usually relieved of liability by an unforeseeable intervening cause. However, an intervening cause does not relieve an earlier actor of liability if it was reasonably foreseeable. The causal connection is not broken where the original wrongdoer could reasonably have foreseen that injury to another would be a probable consequence of his [wrongful conduct]."”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[p]roximate cause means that the accident or injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the act of negligence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “* * * [T]hat conduct which is a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries identified in the complaint. * * * [I]f the conduct is `that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by a sufficient intervening cause produces the injury, without which the result would not have occurred,' it must be identified as a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.”
    4 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.