Smith v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

26 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘A superseding cause is an act of third person or other force which by its intervention prevents the actor [May-berry] from being liable for harm to another which his antecedent negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about. “ ‘Comment : * * * * * * “ ‘b. A superseding cause relieves the actor [Mayberry] from liability, irrespective of whether his antecedent negligence was or was not a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Therefore, if in looking back from the harm and tracing the sequence of events by which it was produced, it is found that a superseding cause has operated, there is no .need of determining whether the actor’s antecedent conduct was or was not a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.’””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lundy v. Hazen · Meyer v. Brown

2. ““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.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hilden v. Ball · Lundy v. Hazen

3. ““No. 3. “This action involves negligence, but it is negligence of a different degree, or kind, with respect to the allegations against the defendants Merrill Kim Sharp and Merrill J. Sharp from that charged against the City of Pocatello. “For your information, ordinary negligence may be defined to be the omission or want of ordinary care, and ordinary care is such care as an ordinarily prudent person would exercise under like circumstances. Negligence may consist -of the failure to do that which an ordinarily prudent person would do under the circumstances, or the doing of that which an ordinarily prudent person would not do under the circumstances. The care to be exercised to be ordinary care must be proportioned to the danger reasonably to be apprehended under the circumstances. What might be ordinary care under certain circumstances would be negligence under other circumstances. “The standard by which ordinary care is gauged is the question: “ ‘What would an ordinarily prudent person hate done under like circumstances ? ’ “If a person acted as an ordinarily prudent person would act under the same circumstances and conditions there is no negligence. If a person failed to act as an ordinarily prudent person would have acted under the same or like circumstances and conditions, then there is negligence.” “No. 12. “It is the duty of a municipality to erect and maintain barriers or warning devices wherever necessary to make the street reasonably safe for travelers .using ordinar”

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