186 Cal. App. 2d 413 - Krause v. Apodaca’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably 9 Cal. 3d 904 - Thompson v. Occidental Life Insurance (1973), 44 Cal. App. 4th 1160 - Beck Development Co. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (1996)
54 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 457 - Blank v. Coffin · 112 Cal. App. 2d 638 - Estate of Teed · 21 Cal. 2d 654 - Hicks v. Reis · 47 Cal. 2d 509 - Leonard v. Watsonville Community Hospital · 11 Cal. 2d 64 - Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sales Corp.
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is settled that where the evidence raises an inference that a fact exists, and either party produces evidence of the nonexistence of the fact that is clear, positive, uncontradicted and of such a nature that it cannot rationally be disbelieved, the nonexistence of the fact is established as a matter of law. (See Blank v. Coffin, 20 Cal.2d 457, 461 [ 126 P.2d 868 ].) In these circumstances the inference is dispelled as a matter of law, and, if the fact inferred is necessary to establish an essential element of the plaintiff’s case, a nonsuit or directed verdict is proper. (Engstrom v. Auburn Auto. Sales Corp., 11 Cal.2d 64 [ 77 P.2d 1059 ] [directed verdict] ; Crouch v. Gilmore Oil Co., Ltd., 5 Cal.2d 330 [ 54 P.2d 709 ] [nonsuit] ; Ceranski v. Muensch, 60 Cal.App.2d 751 [ 141 P.2d 750 ] [directed verdict]; Johnston v. Black Co., 33 Cal.App.2d 363 [ 91 P.2d 921 ] [insufficiency of evidence].)” (See Krause v. Apodaca, 186 Cal.App.2d 413, 419 [ 9 Cal.Rptr. 10 ].)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Surabian v. Lorenz“. There is no testimony as to the cause of the conflagration except that of the two experts, and no circumstantial proof except that which corroborates their opinions. The record suggests no reasonable explanation of the five except that expressed by these experts. No question is raised as to their qualifications or their probity. Respondent merely argues that the trial judge was free to reject their testimony. Not so.””
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.