Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 111 CALAPP2D 774 - Mattox v. Isley

Mattox v. Isley’s Empirical Analysis

1952

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
March 1982
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 1982

14 state decisions

601952196019701980decided

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 3 Cal. 2d 427 - Crawford v. Southern Pacific Co. · 42 Cal. App. 2d 144 - Bauman v. City and County of San Francisco · Pratt v. Pratt · 97 Cal. App. 144 - Cummings v. Cummings · Shriver v. Silva

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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““. . . A child is entitled to recover special damages for medical expenses paid by his parents for his benefit, but such item is subject to the defense of contributory negligence on the part of the parents. When they sue as guardians ad litem and plead such medical expenses as have not been paid, the allegation thereof is a waiver of the parents’ rights, and the child may recover such items of special damage unless precluded by the contributory negligence of the parents. (Shriver v. Silva, 65 Cal.App.2d 753, 768 [ 151 P.2d 528 ]; Bauman v. City & County of San Francisco, 42 Cal.App.2d 144, 162 [ 108 P.2d 989 ].)””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Although it is common practice for a dissatisfied litigant to urge errors of law as grounds for a new trial it is not compulsory that he do so but he may, instead, present them on appeal as grounds for reversal of the judgment. (2 Cal. Jur., § 103, p. 306; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Los Angeles Ry. Co., 182 Cal. 781, 785 [ 190 P. 161 ].) ””
    1 later decision 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.