122 Cal. App. 61 - Moore v. McDonald’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

11 state decisions

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

1. ““It is well recognized by all courts that in cases of this kind where the facts and circumstances of a transaction are entirely within the knowledge of the adverse parties it is often impossible for a plaintiff to secure direct testimony of the real facts of a transaction of the nature of the one here involved. Under such circumstances the trial court is permitted to draw reasonable inferences from the evidence and upon such inferences base its judgment ... ‘It would in most cases be extremely difficult, and in many eases absolutely impossible, to procure direct evidence of this nature. In all cases it is permissible to prove fraud by circumstances, and in most cases it is the only evidence available. In aid of the direct facts proved, legitimate inferences are permitted to be indulged to establish other facts not directly in evidence. (Butler v. Collins, 12 Cal. 457 ; Levy v. Scott, 115 Cal. 39 [ 46 Pac. 892 ].) ’ Our duty under these circumstances is set forth in Mah See v. North American Acc. Ins. Co., 190 Cal. 421 [26 A. L. R. 123, 213 Pac. 42, 44 ], ‘This court has frequently held that even though all the facts are admitted or uncontradieted, nevertheless, if it appears that either one of two inferences may fairly and reasonably be deducted from those facts, there still remains in the case a question of fact to be determined by the jury (or by the trial judge where the case is tried without a jury), and that the verdict of the jury or the finding of the trial judge there”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Chichester v. Mason