10 Cal. 3d 874 - Whitfield v. Roth’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 229 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 268 later decisions — most recently October 2016 · most notably 44 Cal. 3d 1103 - Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1988), 14 Cal. 4th 605 - People v. Gardeley (1996)
21 federal appellate · 229 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 46 Cal. 2d 818 - People v. Watson · 66 Cal. 2d 468 - Tammen v. County of San Diego · 61 Cal. 2d 602 - Horn v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · Williams v. Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority · Tingley v. Times Mirror 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 268 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) When a claim that is required by Section 911.2 to be presented not later than the 100th day after the accrual of the cause of action is not presented within such time, a written application may be made to the public entity for leave to present such a claim. [¶] (b) The application shall be presented to the public entity ... within a reasonable time not to exceed one year after the accrual of the cause of action and shall state the reason for the delay in presenting the claim. The proposed claim shall be attached to the application. In computing the one-year period under this subdivision, time during which the person who sustained the alleged injury, damage, or loss is a minor shall be counted, but the time during which he is mentally incapacitated and does not have a guardian or a conservator of his person shall not be counted. " (Italics added.) Relying on the concluding clause of the italicized sentence the clause relating to mental incapacitation plaintiff contends that because he has been mentally incapacitated for the entire period of his injury, the time for filing a late claim was tolled under this provision until his mother was formally appointed his guardian ad litem by the superior court on June 24, 1982. As a consequence, he asserts that his late-claim application, filed March 4, 1982, was presented even before the late-claim period had begun to run and consequently was filed "within a reasonable time”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage“'[i]n a suit for malpractice the statute of limitations commences to run when the plaintiff discovers the injury and its negligent cause or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered it.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“a channel ... [to] place the opinion of innumerable out-of-court doctors before the jury.”
2 later decisions 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.