19 Cal. 3d 59 - Krouse v. Graham’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 432 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 495 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably 48 Cal. 3d 644 - Thing v. La Chusa (1989), Sinn v. Burd (1979)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 432 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Dillon v. Legg · Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet · 13 Cal. 3d 43 - Bertero v. National General Corp. · 12 Cal. 3d 382 - Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. · 71 Cal. 2d 342 - People v. Hutchinson
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 495 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"(1) Whether plaintiff was located near the scene of the accident as contrasted with one who was a distance away from it. "(2) Whether the shock resulted from a direct emotional impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and contemporaneous observance of the accident, as contrasted with learning of the accident from others after its occurrence. "(3) Whether plaintiff and the victim were closely related, as contrasted with an absence of any relationship or the presence of only a distant relationship." Dillon v. Legg, 69 Cal.Rptr. at 80 , 441 P.2d at 920 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“he fully perceived the fact that she had been so struck, for he knew her position an instant before the impact, observed defendant's vehicle approach her at a high speed on a collision course, and realized that defendant's car must have struck her.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““Upon an inquiry as to the validity of a verdict, any otherwise admissible evidence may be received as to statements made, or conduct, conditions, or events occurring, either within or without the jury room, of such a character as is likely to have influenced the verdict improperly. No evidence is admissible to show the effect of such statement, conduct, condition, or event upon a juror either in influencing him to assent to or dissent from the verdict or concerning the mental processes by which it was determined.””
3 later decisions 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.