21 Cal. 2d 654 - Hicks v. Reis’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 237 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 240 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably 3 Cal. 3d 875 - Foreman & Clark Corp. v. Fallon (1971), Nichols v. Mitchell (1948)
3 federal appellate · 237 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 · Westberg v. Willde · 11 Cal. 2d 64 - Engstrom v. Auburn Automobile Sales Corp. · 1 Cal. App. 2d 349 - Hughes v. Quackenbush · 41 Cal. App. 323 - Maupin v. Solomon
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 240 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[I]f they do refuse [the testimony] credence [this testimony] is of no more effect than if it had not been given. It disappears from the case and the inference opposed to it is no longer contradicted.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““. . . [T]he trier of the facts may not indulge in the inference when that inference is rebutted by clear, positive and uneontradicted evidence of such a nature that it is not subject to doubt in the minds of reasonable men. The trier of the facts may not believe impossibilities.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Appellant contends that the inference was rebutted as a matter of law. Such contention is not sound. The trier of the facts is the exclusive judge of the credibility of the witnesses. (§ 1847, Code Civ. Proc.) While this same section declares that a witness is presumed to speak the truth, it also declares that ‘This presumption, however, may be repelled by the manner in which he testifies, by the character of his testimony ... or his motives, or by contradictory evidence.’ In addition, in passing on credibility, the trier of the facts is entitled to take into consideration the interest of the witness in the result of the case. (See cases collected 27 Cal.Jur. 180, § 154.) Provided the trier of the facts does not act arbitrarily, he may reject in toto the testimony of a witness, even though the witness is uneontradicted. (Blank v. Coffin, supra; Hinkle v. Southern Pacific Co., 12 Cal.2d 691 [ 87 P.2d 349 ] ; Barsha v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 32 Cal.App. 2d 556 [ 90 P.2d 371 ] ; Burke v. Bank of America etc. Assn., 34 Cal.App.2d 594 [ 94 P.2d 58 ] ; People v. La Fleur, 42 Cal. App.2d 50 [ 108 P.2d 99 ]; see cases collected in 27 Cal.Jur. 182, § 156; 8 A.L.R. 796 .) As a general rule, therefore, the trier of the facts is free to • disbelieve the evidence as to the nonexistence of the fact of permission, and to find that it does exist solely on the basis of the inference. (Blank v. Coffin, supra; Bushnell v. Yoshika Tashiro, supra [ 115 Cal. App. 563 ( 2 P.2d 550 )] ; Day v. Genera”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.