Davis v. Underdahl’s Empirical Analysis
1932
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently September 1983
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 McDonough v. Vozzela · Judson v. Bee Hive Auto Service Co. · Sieber v. Russ Bros. Ice Cream Co. · 49 Cal. App. 789 - Dierks v. Newsom · Clayton Ex Rel. Clayton v. Wells
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . instead of the inference or presumption arising by virtue of the ownership of the car having been overcome, there is other testimony tending to show that the driver, David Moore, was the agent of defendant.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lehl v. Hull“"`* * * [a] witness' manner of testifying may give rise to doubts as to his sincerity, or create the impression that the facts testified to by him are colored or not correctly stated.'"”
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.