Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 157 CALAPP2D 192 - Moore v. Rogers

Moore v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
states following
May 1996
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently May 1996

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 18 state decisions

12019581960197019801990decided

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 95 Cal. App. 2d 82 - Sime v. Malouf · 32 Cal. 2d 157 - Stickel v. San Diego Electric Railway Co. · Jordan v. Guerra · 20 Cal. 2d 665 - Douillard v. Woodd · Union Pacific Railroad v. Zimmer

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In Douillard v. Woodd, 20 Cal.2d 665 [ 128 P.2d 6 ], the court said: ‘A mere general offer of proof without producing the witness or stating the evidence whereby the fact in issue is to be proved, or, if the witness be present, without putting a question to him in such form as to give opportunity for objection, is not correct trial procedure and it affords no ground for appeal.’ An offer of proof must be distinctly directed to some material fact and if it is vague or fails to reveal what facts it is proposed to bring out it is not error for the court to reject it.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “An offer of proof must be distinctly directed to some material fact and if it is vague or fails to reveal what facts it is proposed to bring out it is not error for the court to reject it. [Citations.] [3] In general, the rule is that in order to be sufficient an offer of proof must show, in effect, that a witness or witnesses are available and the particular facts which it is expected will be brought out through the testimony offered.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “not in itself sufficient to set aside a written release.”
    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.