Bekins Van Lines, Inc. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 state decisions

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

1. ““This Court has heretofore held that ‘gross receipts from operation’ is plain language which requires no interpretation. (Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Roberts, 176 Cal. 183 [ 167 P.2d 845 ], See, also, McHenry v. Alford, 168 U.S. 651, 666 [ 18 S.Ct. 242 , 42 L.Ed. 614 ] ; State v. United Electric Light & Water Co., 90 Conn. 452 [ 97 A. 857 ].) In the case of Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Roberts, supra, somewhat similar provisions adopted in section 14 of Article XIII, applying to public service corporations, were denominated ‘perfectly plain, unequivocal language,’ and the contention that ‘gross receipts’ meant ‘gross earnings’ was rejected. It was held that the language did not contemplate any deduction from the ‘gross receipts from operation.’ In the case of McHenry v. Alford, supra, a similar phrase was said to mean ‘earnings (receipts) which arise because of its operation,’ without any undesignated exceptions. Likewise in the present case ‘gross receipts from operation’ must be taken in its plain sense without limitation or deduction save as expressly modified by the Legislature. The only modification pertinent in this case is that contained in the definition of ‘gross receipts from operation’ which adds to the foregoing quoted phrase the words ‘of such motor vehicle or motor vehicles beginning and ending entirely within this state . . . etc.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 42 Cal. 2d 129 - County of Los Angeles v. Southern Counties Gas Co. · 55 Cal. App. 2d 610 - Robertson v. Johnson

2. ““On this state of the record every intendment is in favor of the judgment, and it is presumed that every fact essential to the support of the judgment was proved and found by the court.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Division of Labor Law Enforcement v. Robinson · 74 Cal. App. 2d 56 - Childers v. Childers

3. “The preparatory activities sought to be excepted are just as much a part of and essential to transportation, and therefore to operation of motor vehicles, as are actual loading and unloading operations which are also preparatory to the rolling of the vehicle along the highways. To adopt the plaintiff's suggestion would be to add to the language of the definition a limitation which the Legislature did not express and which it must be deemed it did not intend. If the Legislature intended to exclude from `operation' as defined every incidental service and activity customary and essential in the matter of transporting goods for compensation and hire, it could easily have said so. By failure to use any such limiting words the Legislature indicated its intention of not so limiting or circumscribing the meaning or scope of the act. ( In re Bush, 6 Cal.2d 43 [ 56 P.2d 511 ].) Under the applicable rules of construction this court may not supply any language which the Legislature must be deemed to have omitted intentionally.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 51 Cal. 2d 531 - Santa Fe Transportation Co. v. State Board of Equalization