Inferring causation merely from temporal sequence is the post hoc fallacy.

Evidence

Logicians describe one process of reaching an ultimate fact from insufficient basic facts as the false cause or post hoc fallacy. The fallacy consists of reasoning from sequence to consequence, that is, assuming a causal connection between two events merely because one follows the other. For this reason the fallacy is often referred to as that of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this and therefore in consequence of this), an expression which itself explains the nature of the error. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1131

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy — essential doctrine for evidence and causation analysis.
• XREF: Connects to Federal Rules of Evidence logical relevance analyses and to any tort causation discussion. — connects to: Proving a different point than the actual issue is the fallacy of irrelevance — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1012; A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129; Chronological sequence alone never proves causation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1130 (+3 more)
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1131

Broader Connections

• Sequence alone never establishes causation as a matter of law #corroborates (0.85) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1134