9 canonical passages across 8 cases, quoted by 54 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 Select Insurance Co. v. Boucher.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Select Insurance Co. v. Boucher Anchor | green | “the basic characteristic of an inferential rebuttal is that it presents a contrary or inconsistent theory from the claim relied upon for recovery.” | 13 |
| 2 | Travis v. City of Mesquite | green | “foreseeability does not require that a person anticipate the precise manner in which injury will occur once he has created a dangerous situation through his negligence.” | 7 |
| 3 | Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton | red | “cause in fact means that the defendant's act or omission was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury which would not otherwise have occurred.” | 7 |
| 4 | Dillard v. Texas Electric Cooperative | green | “an inferential rebuttal defense operates to rebut an essential element of the plaintiff's case by proof of other facts.” | 5 |
| 5 | D. Houston, Inc. v. Love | green | “proximate cause requires both cause in fact and foreseeability.” | 5 |
| 6 | Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton | red | “substantial factor in bringing about the injury which would not otherwise have occurred.” | 5 |
| 7 | Kroger Co. v. Elwood | green | “it must, for example, warn an employee of the hazards of employment and provide needed safety equipment or assistance.” | 4 |
| 8 | Orange County v. Ware | green | “the actor's conduct has such an effect in producing harm as to lead reasonable men to regard it as a cause.” | 4 |
| 9 | Goolsbee v. Texas & New Orleans Railroad | green | “sole proximate cause' means the 'only' proximate cause” | 4 |
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.