103 Cal. App. 610 - Ayres v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1930
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 1967 · most notably 58 Cal. 2d 552 - Merrill v. Buck (1962), Shotwell v. Bloom (1943)
28 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 Hines v. Willcox · 41 Cal. App. 167 - Trout v. Ogilvie · Franklin v. Tracy · Stumpf v. Leland · O'Malley v. Twenty-Five Associates
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are governed, however, by a code provision which makes no such exception, and it is presumed that, in the absence of an express exception, no such qualification of the rule was intended. (Trout v. Ogilvie, 41 Cal.App. 167, 174 [ 182 P. 333 ]; Forbes v. City of Los Angeles, 101 Cal.App. 781 [ 282 P. 528 ].) In construing an enactment identical in language, the Supreme Court of Idaho declared that the statute was controlling and admitted no exceptions other than those placed there by the Legislature. (Watkins v. Lord, 31 Idaho 352 [ 171 P. 1133 ]; see, also, Falk v. Wittram, 120 Cal. 479, 481 [ 52 P. 707 , 65 Am.St.Rep. 184 ]; Marple v. Jackson, 184 Cal. 411, 414 [ 193 P. 940 ].)””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“that in cases of this character there is no place for the doctrines or phrases of the law of negligence . . . what the law exacts is not care, but honesty.” It also is stated (on p. 618) :”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Anderson v. Shuman
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.