Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 A2D 368 - Conn v. Hillard

Conn v. Hillard’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
2
states following
December 1990
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently December 1990

4 state decisions

1019511960197019801990decided

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 Ross v. Hartman · Schaff v. R. W. Claxton, Inc. · National Surety Corp. v. Provident Trust Co. · Powers v. Standard Oil Co. · Darr v. Mutual Life Insurance

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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““But under the law of negligence, the most generally accepted theory- of causation is that of natural and probable consequences; the rule being that, in order to recover for an injury alleged to have resulted from the negligence of another, or in order that defendant, in an action for such an injury, may set up a negligent act of the plaintiff as a bar, the injury must be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence, or as otherwise stated, the wrong and the resulting damage must be known by common experience to be naturally and usually in sequence — the damage, according to the usual course of events, must follow from the wrong. The test is whether ordinary prudence would have suggested to the negligent person that his act or omission would probably result in injury. A distinction is well recognized between a cause of an accident and a condition. Thus an event may be one without which a particular injury would not have occurred; yet if it was merely the condition or occasion affording opportunity for the other event to produce the injury, it is not the proximate cause thereof.””
    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.