Comeau v. Rupp’s Empirical Analysis
1992
Citation profile
64 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably 208 Ill. 2d 259 - Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508 v. Lybrand (2003), Emig v. American Tobacco Co. (1998)
64 district · 1 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
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1821 · 28 U.S.C. § 1961
Relies on Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · Idaho v. Wright · Marathon Oil Co. v. United States · Thompson v. Thompson · Idaho v. Wright
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As to proximate cause, therefore, the issue is not whether the Accountants expressed a negligently-formed opinion as to the soundness of specific loans purchased by [the defunct S & L], And it is certainly not a question of whether the Accountants “caused” the loans to sustain losses (which would effectively grant auditors absolute immunity against malpractice actions). Rather, the inquiry is whether it was reasonably foreseeable to the Accountants that the lending and/or loan servicing practices of [the defunct S & L], if unchecked, could be expected to result in loan losses of the type sustained by [the defunct S & L],”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Proximate cause of an injury is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury and without which the injury would not have occurred, the injury being the natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act. Moreover, although foreseeability is an element of proximate cause, it is not necessary that a defendant should have been able to anticipate the precise injury. A negligent act may be considered a proximate cause of the injury if by the exercise of reasonable care it might have been foreseen or anticipated that some injury might result.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We are ... not prepared to admit that accountants are immune from the consequences of their negligence because those who employ them have conducted their own business negligently. The situation in this respect is not unlike that of a workman injured by a dangerous condition which he has been employed to rectify. Accountants, as we know, are commonly employed for the very purpose of detecting defalcations which the employer’s negligence has made possible. Accordingly, we see no reason to hold that the accountant is not liable to his employer in such cases.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.