Giles v. Happely’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
September 1968
most recently cited
12 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 63 Cal. App. 2d 214 - Kennedy v. Isenberg · Burgess v. Bohle · 51 Cal. App. 2d 173 - Clarke v. Volpa Bros. · Vulicevich v. Skinner · Cowan v. Market Street Railway 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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The correct rule is accurately stated in People v. McLachlan [ 36 Cal.App.2d Supp. 754 ( 93 P.2d 280, 282 )], by Mr. Presiding Judge Shaw, at page 757, as follows: 'Questions of right of way arise between two users of the highway only when there is danger of a collision between them if both proceed on their respective ways without delay. (Mitrovich v. Graves (1938), 25 Cal.App.2d 649, 654, 655 [ 78 P.2d 227 ]; Cowan v. Market St. Ry. Co. (1935), 8 Cal.App.2d 642, 646, 647 [ 47 P.2d 752 ]; Switzer v. Baker (1916), 178 Iowa 1063 [ 160 N.W. 372 , 375].) The case of Mitrovich v. Graves, supra, involved the provision of section 462 of the Vehicle Code which requires a pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point not within a crosswalk to "yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“merely means that when the course of an automobile along a highway meets with that of a person who [ 161 Cal.App.2d Supp. 846 ] seeks to walk across the street or roadway at a point other than along a marked crosswalk, under circumstances which render a collision likely, the pedestrian must stop and permit the vehicle to pass ahead of him. ... The rule applies only under circumstances when the opposite courses of the vehicle and the pedestrian render it dangerous for both to proceed on their respective ways without delay. Under such circumstances, the pedestrian must stop to permit the vehicle to precede him.”
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.