Clark v. Chrishop’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 state decisions

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.

1. ““Ordinarily, the proximate cause of an injury is a question of fact for the jury or the court as trier of the facts. Ford v. Connell, 69 Idaho 183 , 204 P.2d 1019 ; Mason v. Hillsdale Highway Dist., 65 Idaho 833 , 154 P.2d 490 ; but in the absence of evidence showing or tending to show a causal connection between defendant’s negligence and plaintiff’s injury, defendant, as a matter of law, cannot be charged with liability. Chatterton v. Pocatello Post, supra.” Clark v. Chrishop, 72 Idaho 340 , at page 344, 241 P.2d 171 , at page 173.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Sharp

2. ““ ‘It may be stated as a general rule that negligence which merely furnishes the condition or occasion upon which injuries are received, but does not put in motion the agency by which the injuries are inflicted is not the proximate cause thereof. 38 Am.Jur. 702.’ ” Clark v. Chrishop, 72 Idaho 340 , at pages 342-343, 241 P.2d 171 , at page 172.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Smith v. Sharp

3. ““The breach of duty to be actionable must be the proximate cause of the injury complained of, that is, the cause which in natural and continuous sequence unbroken by any efficient intervening cause produces the result, and without which the result would not have occurred.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lundy v. Hazen