Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 CALAPP2D 693 - Pandell v. Hischier

Pandell v. Hischier’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
3
states following
February 1990
most recently cited

20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 1990

20 state decisions

14019591960197019801990decided

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 83 Cal. App. 2d 375 - Malinson v. Black · 132 Cal. App. 2d 212 - Gilbert v. Pessin Grocery Co. · Jaeger v. Chapman · Mullanix v. Basich · 136 Cal. App. 67 - Reuter v. Hill

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

  1. “* * * and the only point made is that, at the time the truck emerged from the private road to the highway, the defendant Mary Horn, driving her car as aforesaid, had the right of way. This is based upon the provisions of subdivision b of section 131 of the California Vehicle Act of 1923 * * * which then read: `The driver of a vehicle entering a public highway from a private road or drive shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on said public highway.' The argument is made that, irrespective of the distance between the approaching car driven by the defendant Mary Horn and the private highway on which the truck was emerging, it gave the defendant the right of way. The subdivision of the section, however, is not susceptible of any such interpretation. If interpreted literally as the subdivision reads, or as it then read, no one could ever drive from a private road upon a public highway if any one were approaching upon such highway, irrespective of the distance. The subdivision must be construed to give effect to the intent of the Legislature, which was to prevent automobile drivers on private roads from entering a public highway when a car was approaching upon such highway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard, and not that no one should enter upon a public highway from a private road or driveway so long as the public highway was in use.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “the privilege of the immediate use of the roadway”
    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.