Lusk v. Pugh’s Empirical Analysis
1916
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2009
15 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 Western Railway of Alabama v. Mutch · Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. Conoyer · Holmes v. McPheeters · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Quick · St. Louis S. F. R. Co. v. Darnell
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is a well established rule that in a suit for damages for personal injuries, although the defendant may be shown to have been negligent in some manner, yet, unless the negligence so shown was the proximate cause of the injury complained of, no recovery can be had on account of such negligence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The proximate cause of an event must be understood to be that which in the natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any independent cause produces that event and without which that event could not have occurred.” ■”
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.