Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Armstrong v. Industrial Electric & Equipment Service

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided December 22, 1981No. 5196Published

1ConcurrenceSutin, Judge

(specially concurring).

I concur.

The time has long since past when serious consideration should be given to the value of an instruction that defines “proximate cause.” It has been widely used in judicial opinions. For purposes of arriving at a result, scholarly judges are able to define “proximate cause,” but none can explain it. They can pierce the meaning of each of the various causes that defy the minds of the average juror. For example only, Roswell v. Davenport, 14 N.M. 91, 94, 89 P. 256 (1907), says:

Proximate cause and effect have been best defined in the much quoted case of Railway Co.…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. KelloggSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
  2. Osborne v. MontgomeryWisconsin Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. BarnesSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1946
  4. Rix v. Town of AlamogordoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1938
  5. Pettes v. JonesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1937

9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API