8 Ariz. App. 33 - McDowell v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 1994
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 Carpenelli v. Scranton Bus Co. · Smith v. Moroney · Herzberg v. White · Paustenbaugh v. Ward Baking Co. · Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Cornum
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.
““ . . . [T]he court in Mantovani [Mantovani v. Green, 90 Ariz. 376 , 368 P.2d 448 (1962)] did not repudiate the well known principle that in order for negligent acts or omissions to constitute ‘contributory negligence’, it must be proven that plaintiff’s acts or omissions proximately caused his injury. It is elementary that a plaintiff cannot be denied recovery for his negligence unless such negligence is the proximate cause of his injury. See Salt River Valley W. U. Assn. v. Cornum, 49 Ariz. 1 , 63 P.2d 639 (1937) ; Stearman v. Miranda, 97 Ariz. 55 , 396 P.2d 622 (1964); and Serrano v. Kenneth A. Ethridge Contracting Co., 2 Ariz.App. 473 , 409 P.2d 757 (1966).””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““ ‘Ladies and gentlemen, another test of proximate cause recognized by our law may be helpful to you. Was the negligent act of the party under consideration a material element or a substantial factor in producing the injury? An act or an omission cannot be a proximate cause if it contributes only slightly or possibly to the result, for a proximate cause is one which is a material element or a substantial factor in causing the injury.’ ” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. McDowell v. Davis““. . . The applicable statutes merely provide that a license obtained in violation of the law may be ‘cancelled’ by the Department, and where the licensee has actually been convicted of perjury in making application for a license the Department must ‘revoke’ the license.””
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.