133 Cal. App. 481 - Warnke v. Griffith Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1933
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently November 1967 · most notably 42 Cal. 2d 158 - Prescott v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (1954), Tucker v. Lombardo (1956)
25 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 Hatzakorzian v. Rucker-Fuller Desk Co. · Shanley v. American Olive Co. · 92 Cal. App. 52 - Vedder v. Bireley · 74 Cal. App. 10 - Jones v. Southern Pacific Co. · 118 Cal. App. 432 - Ramos v. Service Bros.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The court also instructed the jury that ‘it was the duty of plaintiff to exercise his faculties of sight and hearing to apprise himself of danger, if any, and to use ordinary care at all times in exercising his senses of sight and hearing. To look in a careless manner or to listen in a careless manner is not to look or listen at all.’ To the first part of such instruction appellant urges that it was error to instruct the jury that ‘it was plaintiff's duty to exercise his senses of sight and hearing at all times to apprise himself of danger’. We do not believe that construction can be placed on the language used by the court. That it was appellant's duty to exercise such faculties for such purpose and to use ordinary care at all times in such exercise could hardly be questioned, and that is all the court said.””
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.