Carroll v. Beavers’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
2 district · 31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 1984 · most notably Buckley v. Chadwick (1955), Litzkuhn v. Clark (1959)
2 district · 31 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 37 Cal. 2d 116 - Parker v. Womack · 39 Cal. 2d 622 - Flores v. Brown · Bencich v. Market Street Railway Co. · Young v. Southern Pacific Co. · 36 Cal. 2d 531 - Mallarino v. Hammersmith
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The motion sought ‘All and any accident reports concerning, or at or near the section of Woodruff Lane and/or State Route. 20 described in the Complaint herein, be they California Highway Patrol reports, or any other reports, in the possession of the same defendants.’ “Drivers of motor vehicles involved in any accident resulting in injury or death are required by statute to make a written report to the California Highway Patrol. [Fn. omitted.] [Veh. Code, § 20008.] “Vehicle Code section 20012 designates the reports to be for the confidential use of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol. It provides in pertinent part: ‘All required accident reports, and supplemental reports, shall be without prejudice to the individual so reporting and shall be for the confidential use of the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Department of the California Highway Patrol, . . .’ An exception to the confidentiality is extended to ‘any person who may have a proper interest therein, including, ... the driver or drivers involved, or the legal guardian thereof, the parent of a minor driver, the authorized representative of a driver, or to any person injured therein, the owners of vehicles or property damaged thereby, persons who may incur civil liability, including liability based upon a breach of warranty arising out of the accident, and any attorney who declares under penalty of perjury that he represents any of the above persons.’ [Italics in orig”
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.