Wright v. Munro’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
2 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently June 1980 · most notably In Re Cregler (1961), 87 Wash. 2d 374 - State v. Arndt (1976)
2 district · 32 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 127 Cal. App. 2d 178 - Cornell v. Reilly · 139 Cal. App. 2d 78 - Mast v. State Board of Optometry · Phillips v. Municipal Court · People v. Phillips · 128 Cal. App. 2d 219 - Taylor v. Bureau of Private Investigators & Adjusters
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The evidence is weak, but it is legally sufficient. “The circumstances recounted by Templeman [the agent] support the inference that the bartender knew that Janet Hudson was loitering on the premises and soliciting drinks from patrons. The bartender’s knowledge is, of course, chargeable to the licensees. (Cornell v. Reilly, 127 Cal.App.2d 178 [ 273 P.2d 572 ]. . . .) Janet merely told the bartender ‘Give me a drink. ’ He apparently recognized her, knew what she wanted, and served it to her. The subsequent actions of the bartender in returning to the agent and asking him if he wanted to buy the girl another drink is also susceptible of the reasonable inference that the bartender knew that the girl was loitering on the premises for the prohibited purpose. This is corroborated by the actions of the bartender and the girl when the agent returned to the premises. The term ‘loiter’ has a well recognized meaning, and that is ‘to linger idly by the way, to idle,’ ‘to loaf’ or ‘to idle.’ (Phillips v. Municipal Court, 24 Cal.App.2d 453, 455 [ 75 P.2d 548 ]. . . .) The evidence is susceptible of the reasonable interpretation that Janet Hudson was ‘loitering’ on the premises and that this was known to the bartender. “That Janet Hudson ‘solicited’ or ‘begged’ a patron to buy her a drink is obvious. The question ‘Do you want a drinking companion ? ’, under the circumstances, was equivalent to, ‘Will you buy me a drink?’ Knowledge on the part of the bartender is reasonably inferable.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is unlawful: ‡ ‡ i|< j}? ‡ (b) In any place of business where alcoholic beverages are sold to be consumed upon the premises, to employ or knowingly permit anyone to loiter in or about said premises for the purpose of begging or soliciting any patron or customer of, or visitor in, such premises to purchase any alcoholic beverages for the one begging or soliciting.” (Emphasis added)”
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.