Norton v. Puter’s Empirical Analysis
1934
Citation profile
58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently April 1967 · most notably 45 Cal. 2d 421 - Emery v. Emery (1955), 30 Cal. 2d 193 - Cope v. Davison (1947)
58 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 Burns's Case · 43 Cal. App. 416 - Helme v. Great Western Milling Co. · 132 Cal. App. 124 - Howard v. Howard · Hulen v. Stuart · 132 Cal. App. 625 - Walker v. Bacon
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘Wilful misconduct depends upon the facts of a particular case and necessarily involves deliberate, intentional or wanton conduct in doing or omitting to perform acts, with knowledge or appreciation of the fact, on the part of the culpable person, that danger is likely to result therefrom. [Citing numerous authorities.] ’ “The preceding definition is approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Porter v. Hofman, 12 Cal.2d 445 [ 85 P.2d 447 ], at page 447.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘ “Wilful misconduct” means something different from and more than negligence, however gross. The term “serious and wilful misconduct” is described by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts as being something “much more than mere negligence”, or even gross or culpable negligence, and as involving “conduct of a quasi criminal nature, the intentional doing of something either with the knowledge that it is likely to result in serious injury or with a wanton and reckless disregard of its possible consequences.” (In re Burns, 218 Mass. 8 [Ann. Cas. 1916A, 787, 105 N. E. 601 ].) The mere failure to perform a statutory duty is not alone, wilful misconduct. It amounts only to simple negligence. To constitute “wilful misconduct” there must be actual knowledge, or that which in the law is esteemed to be the equivalent of actual knowledge, of the peril to be apprehended from the failure to act, coupled with a conscious failure to act to the end of averting injury. (Smith v. Central etc. Georgia Ry. Co., 165 Ala. 407 [ 51 So. 792 ].) ” ’ ””
4 later decisions 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.