Jones v. Wray’s Empirical Analysis
1959
Citation profile
22 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 49 Cal. 2d 652 - Butigan v. Yellow Cab Co. · 24 Cal. 2d 133 - Oettinger v. Stewart · 40 Cal. 2d 630 - Sills v. Los Angeles Transit Lines · 51 Cal. 2d 448 - Courtell v. McEachen · Watkins v. Nutting
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The questions whether a child was capable of exercising care to avoid the particular danger encountered and whether, if so, the child failed to exercise due care, thereby contributing to the injury, are normally for the trier of fact to determine. Cahill v. E. B. & A. L. Stone Co., 167 Cal. 126, 139 , 138 P. 712 . In keeping with this rule courts have rejected the theory that a child of plaintiff’s age, namely, between five and six, is incapable of contributory negligence as a matter of law. Smith v. Harger, 84 Cal.App.2d 361, 370 , 191 P.2d 25 ; Carrillo v. Helms Bakeries, 6 Cal.App.2d 299, 304 , 44 P. 2d 604 .””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Mundy v. Johnson“(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon 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.