Blake v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 9 Cal. App. 4th 88 - Jacoves v. United Merchandising Corp. (1992), Casebolt ex rel. Casebolt v. Cowan (1992)
29 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 13 Cal. 3d 804 - Nga Li v. Yellow Cab Co. · 5 Cal. 3d 153 - Vesely v. Sager · 16 Cal. 3d 313 - Bernhard v. Harrah's Club · 29 Cal. 3d 430 - Cory v. Shierloh · 109 Cal. App. 3d 415 - Allen v. Toledo
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he California comparative negligence doctrine was established, abrogating contributory negligence as a complete bar to recovery on a negligence complaint. Voluntary intoxication may amount to wilful misconduct. Nevertheless, the drinking is not so “intentional” that it disqualifies an injured person from comparative negligence relief. Plaintiff may be unable to excuse his voluntary intoxication. Nevertheless, he is entitled to a comparative fault trial. This should result in a weighing of defendant’s fault in entrusting his car to plaintiff with knowledge of the intoxication, and the fault of plaintiff in drinking and then driving.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Lydia v. Horton · Herland v. Izatt“incapable of exercising the care which it is reasonable to expect of a normal sober adult ...,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Gorday v. Faris · Lydia v. Horton“Section 390 establishes a framework for examining the entrustment of a vehicle to an individual who presents an unreasonable risk of drinking and driving, based either on known propensity or intoxication on the occasion of the entrustment. The framers of section 390 specifically envi sioned its application to cases of intoxicated entrustees. Illustration 7 states: A, who makes a business of letting out boats for hire, rents his boat to B and C, who are obviously so intoxicated as to make it likely that they will mismanage the boat so as to capsize it or to collide with other boats. B and C by their drunken mismanagement collide with the boat of D, upsetting both boats. B, C, and D are drowned. A is subject to liability to the estates of B, C, and D under the death statute, although the estates of B and C may also be liable for the death of D.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lydia v. Horton
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.