144 Cal. App. 2d 637 - Singer v. Marx’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably 67 Cal. 2d 365 - People v. Lara (1967), 5 Cal. 4th 561 - Williams v. Garcetti (1993)
3 federal appellate · 44 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 Raber v. Tumin · 34 Cal. 2d 226 - Blumberg v. M. & T. Incorporated · 16 Cal. 2d 500 - Juchert v. California Water Service Co. · 71 Cal. App. 2d 687 - Vaccarezza v. Sanguinetti · Lashley v. Koerber
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An infant who forceably invades the person of another'is liable for a battery regardless of an intent to inflict injury; the only intent which is necessary is that of doing the particular act in question — in this case throwing a rock at somebody.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““While throwing rocks at trees or into the street ordinarily is an innocent and lawful pastime, that same act when directed at another person is wrongful. The evidence at bar (combining that of Barbara with portions of Tim’s own testimony) warrants an inference that Tim threw at Barbara and inadvertently struck Denise. In such circumstances the doctrine of ‘transferred intent’ renders him liable to Denise.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Keel v. Hainline““ * * * as between a battery and negligent injury an infant may have the capacity to intend the violent contact which is essential to the commission of battery when the same infant would be incapable of realizing that his heedless conduct might foreseeably lead to injury to another which is the essential capacity of mind to create liability for negligence.””
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.