127 Cal. App. 629 - Dodds v. Gifford’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 1967
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 Douglas v. Southern Pacific Co. · Pierce v. United Gas and Electric Co. · Dowd v. Atlas Taxicab & Auto Service Co. · 119 Cal. App. 117 - Peri v. Culley · Robinet v. Hawks
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.
““Since these instructions were erroneous and prejudicial, it was the duty of the court to grant a new trial if the judge was satisfied they resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The question as to whether instructions are erroneous is a pure problem of law. The question as to whether erroneous instructions result in a miscarriage of justice depends upon their application to the facts of the particular case as they are disclosed by the record. In determining whether erroneous instructions result in a miscarriage of justice the trial court is invested with a reasonable discretion. Section 4% of article VI of the Constitution provides that a new trial shall not be granted on account of misdirection of the jury, ‘unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence, the court shall he of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage of justice’. The granting of a new trial for the giving of erroneous instructions necessarily infers that the trial court in the exercise of its discretion determined that these instructions did result in a miscarriage of justice. ’ ’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is apparent that a high rate of speed is not necessarily unlawful or dangerous. The question as to whether the machine was running at a dangerous rate of speed, or at such a high rate of speed as to require the plaintiff to protest, was a problem for the determination of the jury. The instruction omits this necessary element. It is fatally defective.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.