Mason v. Russell’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently April 1997
15 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 20 Cal. 2d 713 - Wennerholm v. Stanford University School of Medicine · 26 Cal. 2d 320 - Burgess v. Cahill · Milgate v. Wraith · 114 Cal. App. 538 - Ledgerwood v. Ledgerwood · 40 Cal. App. Supp. 2d 825 - Brown v. Roland
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We see nothing in the claim that the plaintiffs have waived the right to damages as against the defendants in consequence of the specific provisions of Vehicle Code, § 402(a), St.1935, p. 153. The obvious meaning of that section is that the liability imposed on one who lends a car is for damage to the person or property of others. To say that he becomes liable for damages to himself would be absurd. It would be equally absurd to say that because he might be liable for damage done to others by the borrower of the car, therefore the borrower cannot be liable to him.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bush v. Oliver““We hold that section 402, subdivision (a), has no application in this proceeding. * * * “Necessarily, therefore, when the rights of third persons are not involved, such as in the present case where the action is by the owner against the permittee, an entirely different situation is presented, and hence the reason for the imputation of negligence ceases.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Bush v. Oliver“was to protect innocent third parties from the careless use of automobiles and that this protection should be paramount to the rights of an owner who has permitted the use of his car by others even though he, personally, was not guilty of 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.