Bady v. Detwiler’s Empirical Analysis
1954
Citation profile
56 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Hoel v. City of Los Angeles (1955), Teall v. City of Cudahy (1963)
56 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 42 Cal. App. 2d 144 - Bauman v. City and County of San Francisco · 26 Cal. 2d 196 - Fackrell v. City of San Diego · 41 Cal. 2d 419 - Peters v. City & County of San Francisco · 103 Cal. App. 2d 609 - Osborn v. City of Whittier · Hunt v. Authier
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[f]or a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge or receiving notice, failed to remedy the condition ....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . The burden of proving contributory negligence is upon the defendant. (19 Cal.Jur. 697-699.) True, contributory negligence may be found by the trier of fact from the plaintiffs' own evidence. But cases in which it can be said that the negligence of plaintiff contributes proximately to the accident as a matter of law are rare. The rule has been stated in various ways in a legion of cases, that contributory negligence is not established as a matter of law unless the only reasonable hypothesis is that such negligence exists; that reasonable or sensible men could have drawn that conclusion and none other; that where there are different inferences that may be drawn, one for and one against, the one against will be followed; and that before it can be held as a matter of law that contributory negligence exists, the evidence must point unerringly to that conclusion. [Citations.] ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is only where no fact is left in doubt, and no deduction or inference other than negligence can be drawn by the jury from the evidence, that the court can say, as a matter of law, that contributory negligence is established. Even where the facts are undisputed, if reasonable minds might draw different conclusions upon the question of negligence the question is one of fact for the jury. (Citing cases.) ””
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.