Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 207 Cal. 314 - Wattson v. Eldridge

Wattson v. Eldridge’s Empirical Analysis

1929

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
3
states following
July 2004
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2004 · most notably 67 Cal. 2d 408 - Colberg, Inc. v. State of California Ex Rel. Dept. Pub. Wks. (1967), Faus v. City of Los Angeles (1967)

3 federal appellate · 31 state decisions

160192919301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Chicago Milwaukee St Paul Railway Company v. City of Minneapolis · Slavich v. Hamilton · Spires v. City of Los Angeles · Archer v. Salinas City · Godfrey v. City of Alton

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

  1. ““The real question always is, therefore, whether the use in a particular case, and for a designated purpose, is consistent or inconsistent with such primary object. Whether or not a particular use amounts to a diversion from that for which the dedication was made depends on the circumstances of the dedication and the intention of the party making it. It has been held that such use is authorized as is fairly within the terms of the dedication and reasonably serves to fit the property for enjoyment by the public in the manner contemplated. [Citing cases.] In other words, the dedicator is presumed to have intended the property to be used in such wa/y by the public as will be most convenient and comfortable and according to not only the properties and usages known at the time of the dedication, but also to those justified by lapse of time and change of conditions.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    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.