114 Cal. App. 60 - Clement v. Dunn’s Empirical Analysis
1931
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently February 1975
2 federal appellate · 13 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 Michel v. Smith · Fredericks v. Tracy · Foley v. Martin · Van Pelt v. Littler · Usrey v. Yarnell
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No breach of official duty appears. The liability of a sheriff for the acts of his deputies is not based on the theory that the relation of master and servant or principal and agent exists, but on the theory that the deputy is the representative of the sheriff and his acts are those of the sheriff. [Citing many cases.] Inherent in this theory, on which the sheriff is held liable for the acts of his deputies, is this limitation, the acts must be official in character. ... In People v. Beach, (1911) 49 Colo. 516 , [37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 873, 113 Pac. 513 ]), the court expressed the correct rule as follows: ‘The true distinction is, we think, that liability does not attach unless the act complained of is an official act, constituting a part, and directly connected with the doing, of an official act.’ “Tested by this standard, the negligent actions of Deputy Dunn give rise to no liability on the part of the sheriff and the sureties on his official bond. The purpose of his expedition may have been to perform an official act, but the character of that which he was doing at the time plaintiff suffered injuries was not official. The sheriff had not yet begun to act, for he is not a county chauffeur. This same conclusion was reached in McVea v. Day, (1927) 6 La. App. 383 , and Usrey v. Yarnell, (1930) 181 Ark. 804 [ 27 S. W. (2d) 988 ]. In the McVea case the deputy was going to investigate reported law violations. In the Usrey case he was on his way to arrest some escaped prisoners. In”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““VII. That upon said day and time the defendant John Dunn, as a deputy sheriff of Los Angeles county, California, and acting under the orders and control of William I. Traeger, sheriff, was upon his way to serve a warrant of arrest, and with this warrant and other warrants of arrest in his possession and acting in his official capacity of deputy sheriff in such duties, and while driving said automobile as alleged in paragraph six so carelessly, wrongfully and negligently, and without due right for the safety and convenience of others upon said highway and this plaintiff upon said highway, and while operating said automobile at a speed of upwards of forty-five miles an hour, drove said automobile in such careless, negligent and reckless manner that it came in violent collision with the automobile of the plaintiff.””
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.