Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
4 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 28 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Craig v. Oakwood Hospital.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Craig v. Oakwood Hospital Anchor | green | “while a plaintiff need not prove that an act or omission was the sole catalyst for his injuries, he must introduce evidence permitting the jury to conclude that the act or omission was a cause.” | 11 |
| 2 | Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights | green | “proof of causation requires both cause in fact and legal, or proximate, cause.” | 8 |
| 3 | Wiley v. Henry Ford Cottage Hospital | green | “an explanation that is consistent with known facts but not deducible from them is impermissible conjecture.” | 6 |
| 4 | O’neal v. St John Hospital & Medical Center | green | “generally requires showing that 'but for' the defendant's actions, the plaintiff's injury would not have occurred.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.