76 So. 2d 46 - Cone v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 1986 · most notably Johnson v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company (1970), Marler v. State (1955)
28 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 Burt v. Lochausen · Rowan v. Allen · Bowman v. Puckett · Texas Pacific Coal & Oil Co. v. Robertson · Spratling v. Butler
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"Negligence alone in the operation of a motor vehicle does not give rise to a cause of action; in order to be actionable the negligence must result in injury or damage and then liability may only be imposed if such negligence is the, or a, proximate cause of injury; that is to saythe injury must be the natural and probable consequence of a negligent act or omission, which an ordinarily prudent man ought reasonably to have foreseen might probably result in injury. * * * "[ 76 So.2d 46, 49 ]”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“"`Liability for injuries to gratuitous guest in motor vehicle limited; public carrier and motor vehicle demonstrators excepted "`Section 1. No person transported over the public highways of this State by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation, shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injuries, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been intentional on the part of said owner or operator, or caused by his heedlessness or his reckless disregard of the rights of others.'"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““From undisputed evidence we feel justified in finding that the proximate cause of the accident was the act of Robinson in turning his automobile far to the left on the highway directly in front of Smith’s vehicle. It is also clearly shown Smith was alert to the danger and appropriately sought to avoid the collision. Counsel for appellee surmise that had plaintiff not been driving at such a high rate of speed he could have avoided the accident. Such an opinion finds no supporting facts in the record. The Negro’s car was turned directly in front of Smith without opportunity to avoid a collision. Such an assumption would be most speculative.””
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.