Jackson v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Akin v. Missouri Pacific Railroad (1998), Nealis v. Baird (1999)
3 federal appellate · 26 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 Ashe v. Swenson · Pfeifer v. Standard Gateway Theater, Inc. · Thompson v. Presbyterian Hospital, Inc. · Hough v. Leonard · Panama Processes, S.A. v. Cities Service Co.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question of an intervening event’s foreseeability calls for an evaluative determination by the trier of fact. Whether the injurious consequences that resulted from the original negligence could have been reasonably foreseen is an issue traditionally within the realm of fact, not law. If the intervening force is of a character which (under the circumstances) would induce belief that it might be reasonably expected to occur, the final element is not met and the causal chain will remain unbroken. Disputed, relevant facts call for the jury’s evaluative determination on this issue. Jackson v. Jones, 907 P.2d at 1073 (footnotes omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[The question of proximate cause is generally one of fact for the jury. It becomes one of law only when there is no evidence from which a jury could reasonably find a causal nexus between the act and the injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) a duty owed by the defendant to protect the plaintiff from injury, (2) a failure properly to exercise or perform that duty and (3) the plaintiff's injuries proximately caused by the defendant's breach.”
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.