15 Cal. App. 3d 358 - Bauer v. Jackson’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Wheeler v. St. Joseph Hospital (1976), 186 Cal. App. 3d 1309 - Izzi v. Mesquite Country Club (1986)
28 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 Adams Express Co. v. Croninger · Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Elmore & Stahl · Hart v. Pennsylvania Railroad · New York Nh Hartford Co v. Nothnagle · 58 Cal. 2d 862 - Steven v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n cases where . . . questions of mistake and fraud are raised in connection with the formation of contracts limiting the liability of a common carrier, relevant circumstances and policies call for a not so strict application of pertinent principles of contract law to afford reasonable protection to the shipper. This is so because arrangements limiting liability contravene a strong public policy expressed in the common law come within a carefully defined exception to the general thrust of Section 20(11) of the Interstate Commerce Act placing on the carrier absolute liability for damage, and are in operation attended by characteristics of an adhesion contract.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“to property, except ordinary livestock, received for transportation concerning which the carrier shall have been or shall be expressly authorized or required by order of the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish and maintain rates dependent upon the value declared in writing by the shipper or agreed upon in writing as the released value of the property, in which case such declaration or agreement shall . . . limit liability and recovery to an amount not exceeding the value so declared or released . 49 U.S.C.A. § 20 (11).”
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.