Luis v. Cavin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 52 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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Gauging his conduct in the light of all the surrounding circumstances, his admitted knowledge of the highway curving as it did in entering and leaving the underpass, the truck carrying a harvester, the top of which was 17 feet high, and over the prescribed height limit, the failure to place flares and the failure to move the truck, we cannot say as a matter of law that the jury was not justified in finding as it did. Silva as a reasonably prudent man may be held to have foreseen that as a part of the risk of such negligent conduct other vehicles might collide in attempting to pass his truck so parked on the highway. Therefore it cannot be said that the failure of defendant McKenzie to remove his truck was such an intervening act that it relieved defendant Silva of the consequences of his own negligence. Mosley v. Arden Farms Co., 26 Cal.2d 213 , 157 P.2d 372 , 158 A.L.R. 872 . Nor was the alleged negligence of Vierra and Morrow an intervening act relieving Silva of the consequences of his own negligence, since as stated in the case last cited `what occurred was reasonably foreseeable, and should have been anticipated.' 26 Cal.2d 218 , 157 P.2d 374 . As to the alleged contributory negligence of the decedent constituting an intervening act it is sufficient to state that the verdict implies that the jury, upon proper instructions, did not find as a matter of fact that the decedent was so negligent.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tyler v. Jensen